The Godfather Trilogies: Unresolved Questions and Discrepancies

As a devoted fan of the Godfather films, I must admit that the trilogy has been a source of immense fascination and admiration for me. However, like any long-running story, there are certain aspects that leave the viewer questioning the logic and realism of the narrative.

Killings at the End of Each Movie

The film series is renowned for its intense and well-crafted sequences, particularly the final acts of each movie. While the killings served their purpose in the first film, where the juxtaposition with the baptism created a memorable and suspenseful scene, the subsequent films took a more manipulative approach, focusing on hasty and less impactful actions. In the second film, Michael’s large-scale attack on his enemies, while significant, had a more predictable and formulaic feel. Even the airfield assassination felt like a risky and unrealistic choice.

The third film, however, was a complete departure from the previous installments. The series’ strength had dwindled, and the killings at the conclusion of the film became increasingly absurd, raising questions about the story’s coherence and intent. It seems clear that the third film was primarily aimed at recouping investment in the franchise, rather than telling a compelling story.

Characterizations and Continuity Issues

Several character elements in the series have raised my curiosity. For instance, Vincent Mancini, a character introduced in the third film, is plagued with the problem of whether he exists or not. According to Mario Puzo’s novel, Vincent is Lucy Mancini’s son, who marries Dr. Jules Segal, while in the film, the role of Vincent Mancini is by Frank Vincent, a character who has no clear connection to the Mancini family. This inconsistency can be forgiven from a film standpoint, but it does create a sense of disconnect for the audience.

Moreover, from a storytelling perspective, Michael’s nephews, Michael Rizzi and Victor Rizzi, would have made better additions to the narrative. They could have provided a compelling internal conflict, such as one rebelling against the father figure (Michael) and the other being a loyal supporter. The character arcs of Connie Corleone, Michael’s wife, have also been a source of contention. Initially portrayed as a privileged and spoiled girl, her transformation into a caring mother and then a Machiavellian matriarch felt too abrupt and overly manipulated.

Historical and Realistic Elements

Another aspect that puzzled me was the historicity and realism of the sequence when the Five Families are eliminated. The film series simplified this complex and morally ambiguous sequence, whereas Mario Puzo's book provided a more nuanced portrayal by focusing on Barzini and Tattaglia. The omission of such details reflects the films' need for dramatic and condensed storytelling.

The lack of police presence and the rationale behind Don Vito’s refusal to interfere in Connie's marriage in both the book and the films were also incongruous. A real-life gangster would not condone this, indicating a realism issue. Additionally, the absence of Clemenza in Godfather II, though understandable due to actor demands, was disappointing. The decision to introduce Pentangeli without his presence in the first film’s plotlines felt forced and unnatural.

Conclusion

Overall, while the Godfather trilogies remain a remarkable achievement in cinema, they are not without their quirks and inconsistencies. The film series showcases its strengths through well-executed plot devices and unforgettable scenes, but also struggles with character development and historical authenticity. However, as a die-hard fan, I remain committed to the series and continue to appreciate its legendary status. What aspects of the Godfather trilogies leave you questioning the logic and realism of the narrative?