Download FREE "Endings & Arcs" Worksheet ►► bit.ly/gf-script Chapters: 00:00 What is a "Bitter" Ending 00:50 Protagonist Wants & Needs 02:37 Four Endings Overview 03:37 The Corruption Character Arc Explained 04:24 Introducing the Character's True Self 07:55 Crossing the Threshold 11:47 Story Resolution 13:42 Final Takeaways
Michael Corleone goes through quite a character arc from the first one not wanting to be in the family business to the fully taking control and which we see through to the final Godfather movie in part 3 in which he want's out but they keep pulling him back in and ultimately loses it all when his daughter is sadly taking from him at the end, that and when Michael takes his own brother's life in part 2 Fredo is one of the most heartbreaking saddest scenes and when the character truly loses his humanity .
They always get this wrong despite Al Pacino himself openly saying that even though Michael always loved her, their marriage was doomed because it was surrounded by a lie.
The Godfather is really two films. Both of them are 7acts. The end of the first film could be considered when Michael commits to murder. The film could’ve easily of ended right there. “Justice” the main theme for the first half was served over dinner. The second half is vengeance. And vengeance is served by the end as well. So yes there is satisfaction at the end despite Michael’s dark turn. Good video here.
I have been thoroughly enlightened due to Michaels character Does the plot Necessarily outweighs the means Can he be considered bad for wanting to personally protect his family by any means? Self Sacrifice Always has Its Price Sometimes it's unavoidable if you're lucky in life and everyone in your family keeps their nose clean. Choice
Yeah I actually don't consider the end of part one to be a bitter end. Sure his original want may've been to stay out of it but ultimately he did what he had to do and embraced it. It's not that his want wasn't met as much as it is that his want shifted into fulfilling his need to protect his family. If you ask me, he succeeds at this latter fulfillment by the end of part one. The issue is that it's at the sacrifice of Kay's perception of him. His true bitter end doesn't come until the next two films.
I m not a professional at videography, film making, etc etc But I admire them and want to follow them as my hobby And ur channel is a gold mine for me Thank you 😊
I think the video is overall brilliant, but I can't figure out something. Want is a want, need is a need. One can't become the other and they can't be one and the same thing. If Michael's need is to live a normal life and want is to protect his family, doesn't he get what he wants in his own twisted way? And if it is so, doesn't it make the ending bittersweet?
I'll be really glad if you could share me some knowledge here. Couldnt be Michael real need to aceppt his Nature/ family world? And also if his wants changed consciusly in the middle with Michael desition to protect his family, that woulndt mean he achieve his wants? And therefore it would be more a Bittersweet end?
The man been to war , an actual world war, and came back why would he shake when people attempt a killing on his dad as proof of his crossing in character . He already a trained killer and strategist when the movie starts . Personally makes no sense
Godfather III gets a bad rap. It's a pretty great film (better than most). It's just hard to compare it to the greatness of the first two. There's a lot of pathos in GF III than II, which makes it a really nice bookend for the trilogy. It might have been stronger with more Pacino, less Sofia Coppola though. :)
@@StudioBinder Yes, and being a HUGE fan of There Will Be Blood, Apocalypse Now, and Joker, I particularly LOVE films which explore the degradation a character can experience. I firmly believe it was due to pressure of studios and waning finances that FFC made Godfather 3. He doesn't like revisiting projects, like some of his contemporaries. However, artists must change, and FFC made Godfather 3 with another 15 years of his personal growth under his belt.
The ending of The Godfather, with the cross-montage of the baptism and the assassinations, is my favorite cinema moment of all. Such a mastery of cinema crafting
hauntingly beautiful for sure. You should watch our Director's Playbook on the moment Michael begins to become The Godfather! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OXwqDkyAmeY.html
Michael's control and confidence though out the hospital scene was based on the fact that this wasn't his first experience with lethal danger. He was a Marine who'd been in some of the worst battles of WWII. As he said in a deleted scene, he was awarded those medals for bravery. Further, because he was an officer, he had to make split second decisions in chaotic situations.
At first Michael is genuinely prepared to stay out of the family business for Kay's sake. But then he goes to Sicily, becomes obsessed with a Sicilian girl and quickly forgets Kay. After Apollonia's assassination he returns to Kay, but their relationship is never the same again.
@@ritam8767 I agree part 3 is more sad. Michael deserved punishment for his sins in Part 2 but when they came in Part 3, he was a different person. It was like fate waited until he was weak and old before destroying him...
@@ritam8767 3 is definitely sadder, even if I'd argue that 2 is more depressing. 2 shows how truly alone and bitter Michael truly is, whereas 3's ending shows that Michael has basically given up on life
I've always preferred tragic endings over happy endings. That said, I think bittersweet endings are more compelling than bitter endings. In There Will be Blood, Daniel losing his son and murdering Eli heavily overshadows the fact that he won't have to deal with other people anymore, but it does fit the conventional definition of a bittersweet ending. In Godfather, when Michael's want changes from living a normal life to taking over the Mafia, the audience's expectations for him changes too. We want him to sacrifice his normal life to take the throne for it's necessary; we see no other choice that could preserve the integrity of the Mafia. As Michael spirals down the dark path, we follow him and never question his choices; we too, want revenge for Vito, Sonny, Luca and others. Contrariwise, in There Will Be Blood, the audience is empathetic to Daniel. His contempt towards other people appeals to the darker psyche in our minds. We want him to overcome this obstruction named Eli Sunday, and live happily ever after WITH HIS SON. But, when we see that he is willing to sacrifice his relationship to attain his want, it pricks our conscience. We do not want him to disown his son for he was the only thing that made Daniel truly happy. As he reaches the final step in his descent, we hold him back, his want and our expectations do not align. Disregarding, when he finally jumps into the abyss, it hurts us, a lot. The empathetic bond snaps and we're left all alone, unlike when we decided to take the jump with Michael. One of the few movies with a semi-sweet that I hold in high praise is 'Manchester by the sea'. There is no exaggerated drama, overflowing tears or bloodshot eyes. It just deals with grief and guilt in such a realistic way where the victims try to stay as strong as humanely possible. I think that Lee Chandler has gone through tremendous pain in his life, but never gave in to the sorrow after his failed suicide attempt. After all this, he deserves to have his need fulfilled, to have a loving family again. Let me just say that I couldn't have written all this if it wasn't for Studio Binder. Providing all this quality information for free, you guys are singlehandedly holding the bridge to my dream. In the future, if I become a successful filmmaker, I swear there's gonna be substantial credit coming your way. Thank You.
I don't think one ending is better than another by default, just the execution. I think The Godfather has a fantastic execution of the type of ending it was going for
I am a story writer...I have recently started and I can't tell you how much your videos are helping me...The hard work you all have put into creating such awesome content is just amazing...I thank u from the bottom of my heart...Keep up the good work and keep inspiring people like me...All the best to your team... You guys rock .....
If Michael's newfound want is to "protect his family", then he achieves it, which would not make the end bitter (at least not from the character's perspective). But if Michael's want is his original stated want, "to live a normal life", then yes, he fails at it, which then makes the end bitter for both the audience and Michael. However, this doesn't match the video's explanation, since his original want becomes his need. Structurally speaking, his want can only be that of protecting his family, because that's what informs every action he takes after the inciting incident (the attack on Don Corleone). And his need, also structurally speaking, can only be that of living a lawful, normal life, resisting the immoral influence of his family, because it's the only psychological obstacle that keeps him from achieving his want (it's his internal conflict). Michael wins, that's a fact more than an feeling. He overpowers his enemies and makes his family safer. But he only wins externally. Internally, he loses, because he compromises his rectitude and his relationship with Kay. In the quadrant used on the video, this would place Michael on the Bittersweet square. To place him on the Bitter square you need to consider his want from before the inciting incident, but that's a structural mistake, since the inciting incident is functionally the plot point responsible for triggering the character's main goal. Besides, every action Michael performs in the plot after that is based, derived from, caused by the inciting incident anyway. I know this can be only a technical detail for some, but for educational reasons it's important to get structure and terminology right so as not to confuse people. EDIT: The only room for interpretation that story structure allows for is in the fact that we can either make sense of Michael’s need as a thing he needs to embrace or a thing he needs to abandon. If we say he needs to embrace the lawful life, then he fails at it; if we say he needs to abandon it in order to achieve his external goal, then he succeeds at it. The first interpretation projects our own morality onto Michael’s need - he needs to live a lawful life because that’s the right thing for us, the audience. The second interpretation considers only the dominant morality of the story world - he needs to abandon the lawful life to protect his family. I’d argue that the second interpretation is structurally superior, because it gives us more insight into the mechanics of plot and character. On the other hand, the first interpretation is, of course, morally superior, not to say desirable from the storyteller’s perspective. And in conclusion, both interpretations are equally relevant from a thematic point of view, since they’re essential to the making of the story. But the distinction between them and how they come together to create something complex should be important for students of the craft.
I have read all the books from K.M.Weiland and i can say her books are all you need to learn storytelling, structuring your script and creating character arcs
Jeff Bridges movie, Arlington Road. I will never forget that movie ending. When a bad ending further enumerates the succession of bad things that befalls the good guy and his family.
Michael's story is comparable to Joel from TLOU. In the sense that, both stories ultimately ask the same question: How much of your soul are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of your loved ones? And when you do, was it worth it? PS: a headcanon I have is that, one of the reasons Vito didn't want Michael to be in the business is because he KNEW what might happen. He knew his sons better than anyone, he knew Fredo was to meak for any serious business and that Santino was a good enforcer but a poor don due to his temper and headstrong way of thinking. But with Michael, I think he knew that there was a calculated darkness inside him that, if allowed to grow, would consume him. This gives even more weight to his line: " There wasn't enough time" Implying that, if he had more time to teach Michael his was of doing things, things might have gone differently.
Great job once again! Having multiple ending types explained is extremely helpful for my own writing, as it likely is for many other people. This video reminds me of my own work, since one of the antagonists in a future novel I'm planning has a bitter ending, and it also is relatable to the ending I'm planning for my protagonist. The worksheet was useful as well! That was a great idea!
Amazing analysis. I liked very much how you explain first using JOKER as an example, this way letting the younger audience know this is done "today", and then you use probably the best example: Michael Corleone to show us the character arc and the bitter end. Truly well done. Thank you for this.
Read the nivel..its different fromnthe movie.. jn the movie mivharls wife leaves him and become a family drama nonsense.. in the novel she just goes to the church with his mom to pray for his rise..
Michael and Vito’s dynamic reminds me a lot of Anakin and Palpatine in the prequel trilogy. Both (Anakin and Michael) start out as innocent and good, but end up being corrupted within their stories, influenced majorly by Palpatine and Vito respectively.
To be fair, Anakin was corrupted and manipulated into becoming a monster Whereas Michael's corruption came out of neccesity. Vito specifically didn't want Michael and Fredo to be in the business, but outside forces helped go down a dark path. Michael especially since he sacrifices so much of his soul to protect and secure his family's future that,by the end , he didn't have much of a soul left
another good example of this would be anakin in star wars, who wanted and needed to live a happy life with his love and earn the respect from his fellow gedi’s but lost it all to the dark side of the force
Requiem for a Dream has the bitterest... most bitter ending. To be fair, its bitter from just after the beginning. it is on the top of the very strange category: Best movie that i will never EVER watch again
Agreed. Great film, but one not to watch over and over again. True story: when I saw Requiem For A Dream, by the end of the movie, I just sat completely shocked for minutes and I didn't snap out of it well into another movie that was playing right after on TV.
@@StudioBinder I want to watch it again. Its been so long since I've seen it, years I think, and I wasn't as good at reading movies back then. I think I'll be able to appreciate it better now.
From a small city in south India, for me this is a great place to learn what i want..... God can't give you money or property , he give us an opportunity to find our NEEDS & WANTS.
Don't you think the "NEED" of the Michael Corleone, is to join the Family Business- to kill the sollozzo. Anyone pls clarify me I am new to screenplay writing
Mine is the ending of Jojos part 1. Damn it's supposed to be a Semisweet ending, but... Jonathan Joestar, who wanted to be happy with Erina his wife and protect her and his family from Dio, end up apparently killing Dio and saving her but he dies at the end because of the battle against Dio. :")
Still advocate for "Bittersweet" being getting the 'need' but not the 'want.' I'd call getting the 'want' but not the 'need' the 'gilded cage,' or something like that. Look forward to your examples for these two, though. They're always pretty interesting.
Michael did not choose this path he was obligated. The external conflict drove him to adapt not by choice but out of necessity. Michael had to kill the good nature he had to do what is necessary. In doing so it also showed Michael's humanity. To say he had a choice in the matter is kinda deceptive.
Hey there! Thanks for watching the video. From our perspective, Michael actively chose his path. Initially, he made the choice to distance himself from the family business. Even after his family fell in crisis, he could have stood by and allowed Sonny and Tom take the reins, but he chose to step in. In fact, Sonny and Tom tried repeatedly to discourage Michael from getting involved, so Michael's actions were ultimately self-initiated and motivated out of a conscious "want."
![The Godfather Analysis - The Rise and Fall of Michael Corleone [Corruption Character Arc Explained]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
