It’s no secret that The Godfather Part III is the black sheep of its family. While the first two are revered as some of the best films ever made, bringing the cinematic form higher with their masterful craft and lofty themes, Part III is widely seen as a bit of embarrassment, due to its belated arrival and muddled delivery. For years now, cinephiles have been cracking jokes at its expense, arguing that the film really isn’t any good… but like all black sheep, this is probably only because its siblings shine so bright.
Indeed, when not compared to its high-achieving predecessors, there’s a lot to like about the film. For all the retroactive criticism thrown its way, audiences forget Part III was nominated for seven Academy Awards including Best Film and Best Director – clearly, something was good about it.
Take, for instance, Andy Garcia’s turn as Vincent Mancini. A newcomer to the series, Garcia goes toe-to-toe with Al Pacino in every scene he’s in, exhibiting the same murderous energy and cutting coolness that made Michael Corleone such an iconic character. Also, for the first time, female characters are given some real agency in a Godfather film, with Kay Adams and Mary Corleone coming into their own throughout (when Kay tells Michael that she knows he killed Fredo? Chills).
Moreover, director Francis Ford Coppola is still a deft hand when it comes to intimate character studies. No matter what criticism is leveled at the film, no one is claiming that Michael Corleone’s fall from grace isn’t tragically heart-breaking and ingeniously staged; his failure feels real and earned. Viewers have watched Michael rise from family outsider to head honcho, and watching his descent into destitution can only be heartbreaking.
So, there is some good to The Godfather Part III – it is a fine film, despite its flaws, and some viewers still believe this. So much so that Paramount Pictures have recently announced that the film is getting a second lease on life. Entitled The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, the film will serve as a re-edited, remastered director’s cut of Part III, supposedly giving the sequel a “new life” according to Coppola.
But here’s the real kicker: the issues with Part III are so deeply ingrained, there’s nothing a new edit could seemingly do to solve them. As mentioned, the film has some good qualities, but it has some really bad ones too.
For one thing, the film is largely unnecessary. The movie wasn’t based off Puzo’s original novel and instead imagined where the characters could possibly go a few decades down the line… which is ironic, as Puzo never fully knew where he wanted to them to end up. Over the years, the author wrote numerous novel sequels to The Godfather and countless drafts of Part III (such as one where the Corleones help the CIA assassinate a Central American dictator). With each new iteration, however, the Corleone family had a new final fate different to all the others. Simply put, Part III wasn’t the case of finally resolving a narrative, but rather coming up with another new ending to add to an ever-growing list.
Even Coppola didn’t necessarily want to make the film. He’s often said the first two films had told “the complete Corleone saga” – he only agreed to make Part III due to the dire financial situation caused by the failure of his film, One from the Heart (1982). This wasn’t a film made out of artistic or thematic necessity, but out of its director needing to make a quick buck and its writer wanting to stay relevant. Whereas Part I and II worked so well as the complete story was known for the start and could interweave, Part III was always going to be an unnecessary addition.
Equally, a lot of the issues with the film itself are systemic. The main criticism the film received centered around the convoluted plot and Sofia Coppola’s performance as Mary Corleone. Much like the first two films, Part III’s plot took real-world events (namely, the death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 and the Papal banking scandal of 1981) and created fictional, Mafia-driven versions of them. However, these central events are far more complicated than what can before them. Instead of being as simple as a war between gangs (like in Part I) or the rise of a Don (like in Part II), the plot is about an international papal financial crisis and the intricate politics of unitarian absolute monarchy – not exactly gripping stuff. Sure, a new Director’s Cut could swap around a few scenes for clarity, but the base plot would still be needlessly complex.
Furthermore, what could they possibly do to ‘fix’ the issue of Coppola’s performance? Although Sophia would later find acclaim as a director, her acting was attacked from all angles, with many claiming she was “out of her depth” and “such a weak link”. No matter how much her father rearranges the scenes, Mary Corleone will still be a key part, and therefore Coppola’s acting will always be present. Are they planning to VFX her out? Deep-fake a new actor in? If not, the same criticism for the film will still exist.
Simply put, The Godfather Part 3 isn’t a bad film – it certainly has its issues, but there’s also a lot to celebrate in it. However, the problems it does have aren’t likely to be fixed by a fresh coat of paint. In fact, the only redeeming quality about this new rerelease is that the film will finally have the title Coppola and Puzo always wanted to give it: The Death of Michael Corleone.
![\"IT電腦補習](\"http://itteacheritfreelance.hk/test/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/logo2-2.png\"){kind=logo}
www.itsec.hk
www.itsec.vip
www.itseceu.uk
Leave a Reply