LOL!! Exactly, ..."these two are about as good as you can do". Duh. Absolutely, the two absolute greatest movies ever made are the first two Godfather movies.
Duvall: they shot sonny he's dead brando : :Sighs,exhales : ..............................WOW i love watching marlon work hes soo poetic .The way he just sums it all up in that sigh its like theirs and book volume behind every word and every gesture brando makes .He is living breathing life i miss that about seeing actors.Stuff like that is rare you dont get it on a consistent basis even in todays actors .No one holds a candle to marlon hes just that good hes on another level completely .
'The Chase' he mentioned here is cool. Another one of my favorite films that he is in is 'The Rain People' (also Coppola) from 1969-- James Caan was also in. And of course, 'To Kill a Mockingbird.'
That scene was in Godfather II. Vito brutally assassinates Don Fanucci and goes home to play with his kids. A shivering scene in which Vito's true nature is shown
I was thinking that as he was talking maybe he meant Brando's character but at that point in his life the head don has plenty of hit men to do the dirty work. Did he want brando to flip a table ? The man gets gunned down early on and was weak physically til he died. It's like michael made his bones killing sollozo & mccluskey but he didnt kill anyone else he had others to do it for him. The head of the family doesnt do the dirty work one reason I'm sure is an alibi. Michael had everybody killed during the baptism u know out in public with hundreds of witnesses. Al neri was his right hand man he got his hands dirty a lot killing the hooker killing barzini he killed fredo. It's weird but it's like the only hit man he could trust to kill his brother was neri. I always though al neri became Michael's brother at the end he told him more than even his foster brother tom. Hes the one in a deleyed scene that knew about appolonia and fabritzio I got the impression nobody knew he was married in Sicily other than al and don vito bc in another deleted scene when mike is asking about vengeance asking " what about sonny? What about Sicily " the movie is such a masterpiece many of the deleted scenes should have made the movie. I can forgive certain scenes but the appolonia revenge stuff was not long and I felt very important and satisfying to see fabritzio die in a car bomb. Without the deleted scenes it looks like appolonia s murder was left unpunished and most think appolonia s death was what really killed Michael's soul. Yes sonny died and he heard about it right before appolonia but this was his wife his future and sonny dying was something I'm sure michael was prepared for in their line if work.
@@natalieps2387 Brilliantly put. I would like to add to your excellent analysis on Don Vito's, and Michael's distancing or even alienation from the killings commited on their behalf in both part I and part II, the aura of mystery that this gives to their respective roles, almost in a morbid kind of way. The fact that their characters, with their enormous power and influence in the organized crime, are primarily portrayed as examplary family men, makes the whole thing much more interesting.
These actors have their own egos and you can see the chafing under the surface as they’re asked to comment, as so many times before, about the brilliance and talent of another actor.
I sort of get his thing about the Don being all genteel and diplomatic, but the point is that the Don is always in control and has other people 'flip over the table' and do the dirty work[hence the puppet strings on the cover]. With many top level guys, everything is about business and money, personal favor and vendettas just don't play any part. When Lucky Luciano had Dutch Schultz killed, it wasn't personal, Dutch just wanted Dewey killed, and when the Syndicate refused, he said he'd do it himself. This was against the old code of leaving 'honest cops' alone and more importantly, would bring unwanted heat. What Brando's character did was make cold-blooded tactical decisions, and killing cold-bloodedly is way more evil and frightening than violence born of anger. I really think they got the character right, and 'saintly'? fuck no, that was just his public face and persona--the man had an innocent horse decapitated, and in the book at least, had people's faces deliberately disfigured along with all those mundane shootings just watched a Frank Costello docu, and Frank was a mob boss very similar to the fictional one, vicious and ruthless business decisions born from a cool diplomatic demeanor
Joe Johnson I think we’re all forgetting that The Don did his violence early in life, in “Godfather part 2”, he cut open Don Chichi and put a bullet through the mouth of Don Funichi during the feast of ST. Genero, if I’m not mistaken. Be well.
Joe Johnson I agree completely with what you said. Also the Don had alot of political connections and judges he knew, and was very aware of not being associated with drugs or violence directly. So it makes sense he is the way he is. Vito corleone and Michael are smart enough to know that's how you survive by not losing your temper and players it smart.
I am a thinker. I love the game of chess. So my natural cerebral nature inclines me towards the Godfather. However, I agree with Duvall. The Godfather was romanticized. a more authentic depiction of the Mob would be Goodfellas. I like the Godfather more. But in sincerity, Godfellas is definitely closer to home.
"But in sincerity, Godfellas is definitely closer to home." Most definitely. These guys are just thugs in reality! It amazes me the way celebrities wanted to get their pictures taken with John Gotti. As if he wasn't, at the end of the day, just a fucking criminal.
Apples and oranges. Scorsese's movies go for reality, The Godfather films are more in line with a Greek tragedy. Brando's Godfather is romanticised but Pacino's isn't.
Goodfellas, Once Upon a Time in America, Mobsters - all steeped in heavy doses of violence and savagery. But Godfather is different because it's more the story of a family with mobsters as a background. It's much more believable, (though less realistic,) because Coppola knows how to tell a story, (and that's what the movie is - not a documentary.)
I agree, but that makes The Godfather more interesting. Whereas Goodfellas would have shown the severing of the horses head in all its gore, The Godfather just gives a quick glimpse of the ‘end product’ on the bed, concentrating on the movie producer’s reaction, leaving you to imagine the gory details. I prefer a method of presentation that allows the viewer to ‘fill in the details’ while concentrating on the deeper significance of the events.
My dad was friends with a high ranking marfia guy. One i day i was in a pub after finishing work. I was dirty and sweaty and the barman was ignoring me while serving more affluent looking patrons . Then Vino (Not his real name) walked in a recognized me and started talking and asking how my dad was. He then said to the barman "this is my friend Wu" The barman looked at me almost shitting himself and was like " O, yeah, I know wu. etc, etc" for the rest of the night as soon as my glass was near empty, he would run up asking if i wanted a refill, etc. He couldn't do enough for me. Vino was a great guy. One part he went to the toilet and left all his money on the counter. While he was gone, i ordered myself a fresh beer. When he came back and spotted me with the full glass, he counted his money. When he saw it was all there he asked did i pay for the beer? I said yeah. Then his face went all blank as he said "What's the matter, isn't my money good enough for you?" vino was a scary and intimidating guy
Duvall pronounced Martin Scorsese's last name in the Italian way "Shorsése", but I have always heard "Skorsése." How does he pronounce his own name for Anglophone audiences?
But, of course, this point of view is answered by Godfather II, wherein we see that, clearly, Vito Corleone is a murderous man. Therefore, looking at Godfather I in that light, one sees that Vito, 20 years later, is just keeping his mouth shut. He is keeping his friends close and his enemies closer. Vito is a man who never shows his true nature to anyone.
he never said fly off the handle run outside guns ah blazing he said he should have a little more attitude and im not gonna disagree with a multi award winning actor thats been acting since the 50's ... either way the movie is probably the best movie or top 5 in history.
lol, Godfather 3 not being "as good as the first two" is an understatement. Godfather 3 isn't even a good movie, let alone as good as the first two installments. Completely different look, completely different feel, and a wantingness to provide closure to the audience, is the only reason this film got made in the first place.
Duvall is failing to consider that.....although by far most of the mafia guys would definitely be quick tempered, the Godfather had learned to keep his temper hidden because of the way that his parents died. He became a master of hiding his emotions. As compared to Sonny. And Duvall has to remember the first two movies were basically taken very much after the book so its not necessarily his fault that it was romanticized. I love Scorceses more realistic approach, but the Godfather wouldn't be the Godfather that way, and its a masterpiece.
I agree, and I think Vito's hesitation to enter the drug trade, coupled by the story of his life told in Part II , is meant to demonstrate that the days of old, gentlemen patriarchs being "reasonable" was dying. It also makes sense in the context of the 1960s social revolution too. It obviously romanticizes, but it' doesn't romanticize the mafia as a whole
It is a romanticized version of the Mafia, but not in bad way. It does follow the original book closely, however, in the original book there were many more darker tones. Some examples include Fredo being disowned by his father, a brief background on how sick and coldblooded Luca was, two college kids having their jaws split open, Sonny being shot in the head after he was gunned down, a more detailed explanation of how the family exploited people, Michael revealing that everything was in fact personal, etc. As for Godfather Part II, that was much less romanticized in my opinion. Also that film only followed the original book with the early Vito Corleone scenes. Everything else in Part II didn't come from the novel. The only thing that was borrowed from the novel in present day scenes was the location of the film, because in the novel Michael moved the family to Nevada toward the end.
@Cockoff Gewgle "The first movie was taken from the book. The second one wasn't" In part 2, Many of the flashback scenes with Robert De Nero were taken from the book.
I disagree with you because Duvalle has experience in movies of all sorts so he is speaking from what he knows works not just an opinion and he wasnt saying Marlon (Don) should run outside guns a blazing he just said he needed to have at time a little more attitude period.. but i do see where your coming from. DeNiro played the best part of any character in the movie in my opinion. obviously it was all GREAT thats just me...
Robert Duvall missed how Vito's character traits were reflected in his actions across the films. Vito kept his thoughts ideas and plans to himself. He never showed his anger because murder was the only other option. In part 2 u can see how trauma and self recognition of his own strength and will started him on a path of being a hard working US citizen. U can c how he implemented offers that can't be refused as a means to gain respect by backing up his word with extreme violence and his associates becoming aware of his quiet confidence. As time would produce results (privately murdering the black hand). No cursing or bragging just getting things done. Same thing with the man who had Vito's family killed. Recognizing a need to keep work talk away from home so not to disturb his wife and kids. He tried passing these lessons on to Michael. And for parts 1 and 2 it sufficed. But what makes part 3 great as a storyline is that it exposes Michael and Vito's way of doing things. In the shifting environment of organized crime the old dons have lost respect and the street bosses are on the rise. And while Michael was taught to be a don. He never ran the streets. Enter the bastard nephew who came up in the streets. Vito's way can't fix the respect that was lost because the pace of events are to fast and overwhelming. Michael can't fathom anyone challenging him which culminates in a helicopter hit in Atlantic city. Michael has a stroke and then schools and later passes the mantle to his nephew, why, "I just can't do it anymore." Michael never lost his family like Vito did (mom, dad, 3 brothers) so comitting to Vito's way and waiting for results wouldn't cut it in part 3.
Nice. And hence why in Part 3 after michael confesses and then Don Tomasino is killed by the same assassin who tries to killed michael but instead kills his only daughter..
Disagree with Duvalle, by presenting the Don as a mild-softly spoken man Brando did something that no show of violence could do...he presented Vito as a master of the aura of controlled intimidation, whose words carried more weight than his antics..when he said "i'll make him an offer he can't refuse" so calmly the violence ensued by his men became nothing but an explanation mark! It also allowed De Niro to show just how much violence the younger vito was capable of but had reigned in!
Just like you can't listen to certain recordings piece by piece. They must be listened through or you don't get the experience. "Dark Side of the Moon" for example.
@Ichiro20 yeah, honesty always imply bitterness right? I wish he would lie and speak superfluously, so as not to appear bitter, that's most important. Not to appear bitter.
Robert Duvalls biggest qualm is that it attacked the power class. His argument sucks. It's more politically and emotionally motivated , in my opinion. He is entitled to his opinion.
@Ichiro20 While I was by way of sarcasm disagreeing with you, in that I don't consider honesty to be synonymous with bitterness, although you exemplify the unfortunate consequence of superfluous chatter by interviewees by mistaking it for so. I do not find him bitter, it seems to me like he speaks his mind, which is unconditionally a good thing in my opinion.
Why?😭 I like 3 a lot. It isn't as good as the others. That doesn't mean it was no good. Coplolla probably shouldn't have cast his daughter, and all that incest stuff didnt really work for me. Other than that, incredible premise with the church. Blessed is the peacemaker...
III was HORRIBLE. Michael was unbelievable, (or just consequentially debauched by the time,) the situation was comic book, nobody knew who the dead guy in the coffin was, and worst of all, WHERE WAS TOM HAGEN? I & II are the two greatest American movies ever made, (with II being equally as good as it's predecessor.) Flawless performances in both. Perfect 10 movies. (Very rare.) III is like a cheap knockoff - maybe a couple steps up from the Freshman. Horrible, and an utter disappointment to the franchise. At best, a 6.
Maybe you didn't know that Coppola intended the Godfather to be a metaphor for Big Business and the US Government. Of course neither you or Duval know what a metaphor is and what it is suppose to reveal. Oh,well.
The only time Vito showed any anger was at Johnny Fontaine in the "You can act like a man.." scene. But that was more tough love for his Godson, and he ended up calming him down and taking care of his "situation."
In the book, you find that Sonny has taken Tom in when a child, who became part of the family. Duval's take on that was perfect, and Brando's response equally spot-on, (and then his immediate response. He knows exactly what to do.) Flawless movie.
All good scenes. There are no weak ones. But my favorite is when Michael tells Fredo to never, EVER take sides against the family. That whole scene was beyond great. Certainly a tour de force scene by John Cazale (Fredo) & Alex Rocco (Moe Green), but also sublimely played by Robert Duval and Al Pacino, as well. Part of what makes it so spectacular is how it heightens the impact of us seeing Moe Green take a bullet in the eye a bit later in the film.
@YoungD3mon314 I would argue that's the moment, beautifully understated, HE realized his own capability to thrive in that world. He became acknowledged as the Don subsequent to his conversion with Keaton... when Clemenza, Tessio, and Neri stepped into the den and kissed the ring.
Bob was great here. Yes, How many hosts would talk Godfather for 15-20 mins with Robert Duvall? If this was Letterman, he'd be answering about Madonna, global warming or where he went on his last vacation. Costas went right for the cool shit.
That's why his show was so great in its day, just a one on one interview and Costas always left the door open for further segments if it went well or they didn't get to cover some subject. I wish NBC would put out a DVD box of the best shows, there were so many
@@marcsmilen6565 nobody's perfect, Van Halen have pretty much always been that way. Eddie has done alot of dumbass things with the band so which is worse? He's a genius as long as he's got his guitar in his hand. As soon as he puts it down all bets are off.Ask Sammy about that!
eh, ANOTHER way to look at it was that Costas was always a bit of a lazy & lame hack. Yeah, this was a COOL interview, but an awful lot of what makes it so cool is because Duval was WILLING to go off and talk about the Godfather for as long as he did, and in detail. Now having said that, THIS WAS ACTUALLY COSTAS AT HIS FINEST, because he got all of this started by asking Duval about why he didn't do Godfather, Part III., and then ... most importantly... he shut up and let Duval tell us.
The young Don (DeNiro) did the hard yards. The old Don (Brando) by that stage had reached the top and had others to do it for him. That implies no softening in his philosophy.
Coppola has titanium nuts. He went up against Paramount to cast Brando and Pacino.. apocalypse now faced all sorts of issues between typhoons and putting his own money in the film and facing bankruptcy to get it done...no guarantee he'd make his money back...just a Master!
John Eleuthère du Pont (November 22, 1938 - December 9, 2010) was an American philanthropist, heir to the Du Pont family fortune, and a convicted murderer. On February 25, 1997, he was convicted of murder in the third degree for the January 26, 1996, shooting death of Dave Schultz, an Olympic champion freestyle wrestler living and working on du Pont's estate. He was ruled to have been mentally ill but not insane and was sentenced to prison for 13 to 30 years. He died in prison at age 72 on December 9, 2010. He was the only member of the Forbes 400 richest Americans ever to be convicted of murder.
Besides absolutely loving the Godfather, I agree with the criticism of the romantic approach. So very few movies feel authentic and get the balance right between being "gritty" and "real" on one side, while still telling an epic story in those short 1-2 hours. That balance is something that made the first Rocky movie great - all the silent scenes, the awkward pauses, the weird speeches with mistakes in them and the "unnecessary details" like watching rocky make his pure-eggs-breakfast is what made you really feel the incredible discipline that rocky mustered to get to where he got in the movie. It's not even the violence that is missing, it's that those mobsters don't get the time to show their sociopathic side - in real life they are not the slightly melancholic gentlemen. Then again .... those first two movies where masterpieces; it's just an opinion that I didn't know mister Duvall shared :p
Well, _Rocky_ was great because it was about the "everyday" American. The mighty US of A was so very fucked-up in the late 70s and the "Rocky" character was something you would immensely like and care about. [BTW, in today's mentality, a movie like _Rocky_ will pass unobserved.] On the other hand, _The Godfather_ (both the book and the movie) after reading/ seeing it makes you to want to join _Mafia_ - and I'm not singular in my opinion.
I gotta disagree. Godfather stands out because the violence happens all around him, but he himself is apart from it, (and ultimately imparts that to his son, Michael.) When you see Luca Brasi garroted almost immediately, you understand the native violence of the time. The shooting of the Vito, the violence of Carlo, the shooting of Sonny. All very violent and graphic. The Don is, appropriately, above this, as a general is above the fighting troops. He's not violent, (is controlled, substantive, and a true master of masters.) The opening scene shows him in complete control of his domain, (listen closely to the soundtrack and you will hear the kitten PURRING on his lap.) Whereas other movies may be more realistic, showing the animalistic and sadistic side of the real mafioso, Godfather stands alone as a legitimate and faithful telling of an American immigrant who made good, (at tremendous cost.)
TecToss, I'm with you and Duvall. You can get the warmest lights, best Panavision cameras and most beautifully written scripts, but there is nothing romantic about the mob life. "I mean that with all due respect" to anyone in that life.
perhaps the difference between mobsters like brando's corleone and someone like john gotti is that the former saw murder as something to be done only when all other avenues had been exhausted. there wasn't a love of violence.
Reasonable Conservative...anyone who got to where Vito got did would have used tremendous violence personally to get there...or else, be killed or intimidated by someone nearby first.
I understand what he's saying about the Don being tougher, but I believe he was past that. When he was younger he was that guy, but in the present, he'd already been grooming Sonny to be the head. Ultimately Michael was the right choice.
Once shot, killed, its over. Finance murder is long & torturous. Much slower & crushing. The mafia is more merciful. They don't torture you with starvation & ruin.
If he's struck by a bolt of lightning, I'm going to blame some of the men in this room. That, I do not forgive. That aside, I swear, on the souls of my grand children, I will not be the one to break the peace we make today. Epic!!
Wow he really shits on the way Brando plays Sonny but I thought that’s what was different about that movie it’s a different take on the head of a mafia family.
DuPont does not kill people one to one, they kill an entire village in India and cover it up in an explosion, or dump poison and kill a bunch of endangered animals. It is a question of scale, not a question or evil or good.
My view of Don Vito changed over the years. When I was young, I saw him as a guy who just refused to let so called big shots push him around, and so chose crime vs being a victim. Over time, I see him as a villain - he uses men like Luca Brazzi to threaten bandleaders with death if he doesn't get what he wants. He kills a studio head's horse if he doesn't get what he wants (with the explicit threat that he's next). He creates a family doomed to decay and rot because of the evil choices he made. Good natured Don Vito is so much more subtly sinister than some screaming and yelling mobster - you don't realize you've fallen in love with the bad guy until it's too late to change your sympathies.
Life is about preferences and making them happen. Waltz was mad at Johnny Ola because one of Waltz's main actresses was attracted to Ola and basically dumped Waltz. No one is a saint. Vito is a man of reason. He is not a senseless, ruthless man. You can reason with such guys and find a middle way. He did not prey on poor and helpless. He valued family and respectful relationships. He played the game with other players, not civilians so to speak of. Remember the first guy young Vito killed? He was a vicious bloodsucker. Vito tried to reason with him but the man simply refused and wanted all. Same thing when Sonny died. He did not go for vengeance. I say Vito is neither a villain nor a saint. Just a strong man who made a life for himself and his family.
@@umuta1969 I see your point, but I just want to twist things around. Imagine you own a contracting business and sign a contract with a third-party to do your electrical work. Midway through the project, the 3rd party electrician advises they want to leave because a much larger contractor has offered them a huge deal to do their electrical work. You refuse them - the project would be delayed significantly and might cost you a major business relationship, along with damaging your reputation. You advise them they signed a contract, which is enforceable by law. A few days later, the electrician's Godfather and a very large, scary man show up, hold a gun to your head, and threaten to blow your brains out if you don't release the electrician from his contract. If I am hearing that story from the Godfather's perspective, I might accept that story as part of that world - he's just a strong man doing right by his family. However, if you see it from the other side, the gangster refused to follow the laws of the world in which he resides - he would rather use strength and fear to get what he wants. The contractor was just an obstacle. As another example, watch the first time in the flashbacks that Don Corleone requests a favor for someone - the woman whose landlord is throwing her out. The man initially tells him off, but when he realizes who he offended, he comes back, filled with fear, and agrees to his request - but then, Don Corleone extracts even more concessions from him. I don't think this was in the story to show you how strong he was - I believe it was there to make you realize that the power subtly corrupts even a relatively good person like Don Corleone.
@@tullymox First of all I appreciate your comment. I'm not really against what you're saying but let me put it in another perspective. The electrician scenario seems a bit far fetched to me, since electrician did not stay true to his word and I don't think Godfather would not back him up for no reason, and if he does, would try to compensate me (business owner), if not to the full extent. Coming to the landlord example, at first, Vito approaches him with respect and asks for his sympathy for the old lady, even offering him 10 dollars a month more, paying 6 months up front. At this moment landlord makes up an excuse and takes Vito's money with a grin on his face. That is a concession for Vito's part, and he is willing to do that just to resolve old lady's problem without trouble. If landlord takes the money and leaves, he would not even know the nature of Vito. Instead the man disrespects Vito and even tells him he would kick his ass. At that moment, Vito reveals his identity by offering his name and business card. We don't see it but landlord learns Vito is a tough guy so to speak of, and returns to Genco office with fear. At that moment us the audience knows that landlord is a ruthless man that has no consideration for the old lady and respect for others. Thus he does not deserve respect anymore, and Vito extorts him (well, kind of..). What we are shown as the audience is that such man are not worthy and only understand power and can only be led by fear. That is the justification for Vito's action we are given. Now I have no sympathy for no Don's, Godfather's etc. in real life. But we are given a more positive, optimistic portrayal of Vito in the movie. It's much harder to say that about Michael Corleone though.
The reason mafia loved this film is because they are shown in a positive and intelligent way. Whereas the reality is more complex. But duvall is wrong in lamenting that brando's role is always cool, reflective. Firstly it is always agreeable not to show the expected. And when you read gay talese's portrait of a real family you will meet sensible men who knew exactly about the importance of controlled emotions. And for violence there are james caan's scenes, bashing his brother in law e.g. There is enough violence, hot or temperated. But brando as an old man is doing it right according to the good (and romantic) script.
If he'd done it as duvall suggested it would have been a two-dimensionak charicature- such men don't exist. The most wicked are often the most gentle externally.
Duvall applied this ethos directly to The Apostle which I think he was doing or about to do at this time. Showing the facets of a tortured, righteous southern preacher
Ohhhhh, mister Duvall, how times have been changing. After the 90´s only shit movies, like days of thunder or 60 seconds. You should colaborate on Godfather III.
thank you for robert duvall... he said everything right... nd truly right, part 3 was not as good... though readers/watchers wanted MARIO PUZO novel so hoped yet for a part 4 that then mario puzo cant anymore write...
Im just adding to what you said about the atitude thing .In duvalls mind he feels don corleone should of been more a brute .This includes the sterotypical strong arming mob boss .The way brando did him is that he's no different then any other person with power and influence
Robert Duvall is so honest and unaffected we need more people like him right now, but money has ruined so much and so many people. I agree Godfather I and II are about as good as you can do. Interesting point about Don Corleone Marlon Brando being too nice and antiseptic. I agree actually even though his performance was legendary.
Mr Duvall has never quite gotten the kudos he deserves for being a great actor, I'm with him and his opinions regarding Part I and II Marlon, of course, the greatest actor who ever lived, and part III not a bad film at all, it holds pretty well as the last chapter of the saga.
He loves Marlon Brando’s acting and he really loves the films. He is just uncomfortable with a film that portrays a disgusting mass murder as a gentleman and a hero and everyone can only see him that way. You wouldn’t think he was such a hero if he was real
I agree with Robert Duvall. The way Brandon played him, Vito Corleone was far too avuncular. People have contrasted Vito with Michael but it’s like comparing apple and oranges because Michael is a realistic portrayal of a mafia don and Vito is a romanticized one. As for the Oscars, they’re irrelevant.
If you watch certain scenes in the Godfather they are also realistic, they do the same and act the same as in Goodfellas, EXCEPT for the 2 main characters Vito and Michael who act like saints providing the voice of reason in a world filled with violence and mayhem. But they are really the most brutal ones of all.
Goodfellas is a whole different story. The characters in Goodfellas are street level gangsters. No one in that movie makes the lineup in The Godfather. Both great movies but no where near apples to apples.
The one flaw in Godfather 2 was having Frank Pentangele instead of Clemenza, and they did that because Coppola could be cheap with actors. The actor playing Clemenza couldn't get the money he wanted. I think the movie would have been all the stronger with Clemenza in that spot.
The mafia in New York wouldn’t let them use the word mafia and wouldn’t let them make Brando’s character a bad ruthless killer, though he was, like what he said to the undertaker, give this to someone good that won’t get out of hand after all we’re not murderers lol 😝 the mob made them play it down.
agreed..duvalls way is cliche brando's said it himself hes not trying to glamorize the mafia.or the mob.Einstein said it best imagination is better then knowledge " brando proved that time and time again .His choices for character came from imagination ..which is greater don corleone was a human being ,he became branded as a mobster..even mobsters are people to .they dont just go around all the time acting out violence .
