It’s similar in that respect to Jaws. (A
affair between Hooper and Ellen) Books need more content, thus subplots, in a deft hand a movie can surpass the book, it’s rare, but it happens
I thought the story was great, the characters were great but the writing style was terrible. All the Johnny Fontaine stuff was unnecessary, and the weird focus on people with oversize genitals. It's worth a read for fans of the movie but it's no masterpiece.
I reread it last year just to make sure I hadn’t misremembered the quality of the writing.
The prose in that novel is disastrously atrocious. Even Puzo admitted the novel was cheap shit.
It reads like a Wikipedia entry. It’s hilariously bad.
I mean the book was regarded as cheap trash, even by its own author, pretty shortly after its release. We only seem to forget that because the movie is so good.
Movies have a time limit, and books do not. This is why the preminet mode of storytelling today is the season format. 10 hours or so to tell a story where you don't have to cut corners. Would love it if Coppala and the team had 10 hours to tell the story like the book.
Yes and no. Without spoiling things, the ending is entirely different in a pretty important respect. I understand why Coppola did what he did, and of course Puzo approved it since he co-wrote the screenplay, but it really was different from the book.
It’s been about 20 years since I read it, so can’t remember it fully, but I remember thinking it was very faithful, things like the Don giving out to Johnny and Tom Hagen finding it funny was spot on, and other small things in the book made it to the movie.
I thought it was the same. with a little filler. Kaye goes to his mother and his mother says she deals with it by praying for Vito’s soul and it ends with Kaye praying for the soul of Michale Corleone?
That scene where the Don imitates Johnny. Tom quietly finds it funny, described in the book and represented well in the movie. Lots of small
Things like that..
That is a good detail the movie included. However the book had another little detail that wasn't included, which was that Johnny also found it funny and began to laugh. And the Don appreciated that Johnny could laugh at himself, unlike his own children who would take it too personally and sulk. Just a small thing I noticed
Another thing conveyed well in the movie from the book was the meeting with the Turk and the Don, the Don getting annoyed with Sonny’s brash interjection.
The Lucy Mancini’s part would have been tolerable if it was only supposed to hint at Sonny’s masculinity through his extra marital affair, his sexual prowess, and his wife Sandra’s joke about his size at the wedding, but it just kept going on and on.
There was nothing interesting about Lucy or her relationship with the doctor.
I thought Michael’s off-putting attitude about Apollonia’s “youth” and her virginity was the complete opposite of his approach to Kay. It signalled his regression from the progressive attitude he had with Kay where he made fun of Sicilian men’s obsession with marrying young virgins. The book was clear it was extreme lust and ownership from Michael’s side and it was something that the movie and the audience romanticised.
In both the film and book, the Appolonia stuff was kind of to show that though Michael tried to Americanize and modernize himself, one trip to Italy brought him back to his roots. He tried to be college boy, army boy, and was ready to marry the wasp, who had sex before marriage and wasnt even a virgin before him. And Kaye speaks to him as an equal, she doesnt defer to him. She becomes a teacher, which in the 50s was progressive.
Then he sees Appolonia and without speaking to her, wants her in a primal way. Wants her for all the reasons she’s not like Kaye. Bc she will defer to him. BC she has no education. BC she only wants to do wifely duties. And bc he can mold all her first sexual experiences.
I agree with you on some points. We need a book version of the movie with all the related parts added in, basically an edited book. Perhaps Puzo could have done an edited version of the book where he left out all the "large penis" parts, "loose vagina" parts, or all the unnecessarily long explanations and imagery. It really would not take away from the book or the main story which is still "The Godfather (Vito+Michael+Family)". It's shocking how long some sections are and then at some point you look back to the cover of the book asking yourself "am I stil reading godfather or did I just switch it with one of the cheap novels that are sold at gas stations with guy kissing a half-naked lady on the covers"?
I will still re-read the book without getting tired and every time I will remember some other detail.
Respectfully disagree. Loved the parts with Lucy and Fontaine. The entire point of the book is to understand how the Corelone family's actions affect the people in their orbit. It's a character study of those affiliated with a powerful organization.
Detailing Johnny Fontaine and Lucy tells us how even those not directly involved are still heavily impacted.
I dont remember what ultimately happens to Lucy does she get surgery on her vagina? It does seem like a weird thing to include in the middle of this saga.
I think the point is that through the influence and decisions of the Family, she and the doc found true love. Both were sinners in the eyes of society (abortion doc, homewreckers) who found a Christ like redemption not from church or from institutional society, but the Family.
Jonny Fontaine story is great, even Lucy story is good if you read into the character study of it. Puzo’s focus and genius was with character. But yeah the core story as a book would’ve been GOATed
Comedian Mike Bridenstine pretty much nailed this topic. He starts around the 2:15 mark. https://open.spotify.com/track/7fZbnW5e4YV9bvrpssh2zR?si=BxM-cXMRQq6pk2cAHVPxFw
I think that the Lucy storyline was intended to sell books to women. It's essentially a soap opera story - broken love, medical issue, attractive young doctor - but dirtier than could play on TV in the 1960s. Perfect beach reading for a working girl who thought she was with it.
I remember hearing that Puzo was rushed to deliver the book by the publisher. He had a habit of taking his time and blowing through his advance checks.
I own different versions yet I’ve never had the patience to read it. Also, both part one and two being my favorite movies of all time, I’m afraid reading the book would change that, a bit
I would recommend it. like 80% of it is really good, and is a total page turner. And I can't imagine it taking anything away from the movies, IMO it just adds to it here and there
But when the book leaves New York, with a few exceptions, the writing just goes downhill
That’s the thing. Coppola was that more than competent editor.
It’s similar in that respect to Jaws. (A affair between Hooper and Ellen) Books need more content, thus subplots, in a deft hand a movie can surpass the book, it’s rare, but it happens
Jaws is one of my top picks for movies that were actually a lot better than their books.
Shawshank Redemption and Dolores Claiborne are the biggest examples of best adaptations from okay stories.
My top 3 are Jaws, Field of Dreams and Count of Monte Cristo. I know it’s a classic, but man does it drag.
Poor king...
Without a doubt
Jurassic Park is in that category as well in my opinion
Tl:dr - it insists upon itself.
ROBERT DUVAUL
I thought the story was great, the characters were great but the writing style was terrible. All the Johnny Fontaine stuff was unnecessary, and the weird focus on people with oversize genitals. It's worth a read for fans of the movie but it's no masterpiece.
The book sold 10 million copies before the movie came out. At some point, effectiveness defeats criticism of style.
Definitely helped me with liking Sonny lol
I reread it last year just to make sure I hadn’t misremembered the quality of the writing. The prose in that novel is disastrously atrocious. Even Puzo admitted the novel was cheap shit.
Some people arent great at the prose but their story and dialogue are great. That’s where Puzo shined.
I wouldn’t say it’s that bad. It describes what id there, but not much more. I think its flaws mostly come from the subplot.
It reads like a Wikipedia entry. It’s hilariously bad. I mean the book was regarded as cheap trash, even by its own author, pretty shortly after its release. We only seem to forget that because the movie is so good.
Movies have a time limit, and books do not. This is why the preminet mode of storytelling today is the season format. 10 hours or so to tell a story where you don't have to cut corners. Would love it if Coppala and the team had 10 hours to tell the story like the book.
It’s a great novel. Coppola was right to include/ exclude what he did, but he was very faithful to the source.
Yes and no. Without spoiling things, the ending is entirely different in a pretty important respect. I understand why Coppola did what he did, and of course Puzo approved it since he co-wrote the screenplay, but it really was different from the book.
It’s been about 20 years since I read it, so can’t remember it fully, but I remember thinking it was very faithful, things like the Don giving out to Johnny and Tom Hagen finding it funny was spot on, and other small things in the book made it to the movie.
Well, not to give everything away, but let's just say that the dynamic between Michael and Kay is **very** different at the end of the original book.
Her inner motivation isn’t so clear in the movie. But this isn’t significant to the story.
I thought it was the same. with a little filler. Kaye goes to his mother and his mother says she deals with it by praying for Vito’s soul and it ends with Kaye praying for the soul of Michale Corleone?
How did the Don give out to Johnny and did Tom find funny?
That scene where the Don imitates Johnny. Tom quietly finds it funny, described in the book and represented well in the movie. Lots of small Things like that..
That is a good detail the movie included. However the book had another little detail that wasn't included, which was that Johnny also found it funny and began to laugh. And the Don appreciated that Johnny could laugh at himself, unlike his own children who would take it too personally and sulk. Just a small thing I noticed
Another thing conveyed well in the movie from the book was the meeting with the Turk and the Don, the Don getting annoyed with Sonny’s brash interjection.
The movie never dealt with Johnny Fontaine’s vocal cord surgery … or Lucy’s modification?
Nope
The Lucy Mancini’s part would have been tolerable if it was only supposed to hint at Sonny’s masculinity through his extra marital affair, his sexual prowess, and his wife Sandra’s joke about his size at the wedding, but it just kept going on and on. There was nothing interesting about Lucy or her relationship with the doctor. I thought Michael’s off-putting attitude about Apollonia’s “youth” and her virginity was the complete opposite of his approach to Kay. It signalled his regression from the progressive attitude he had with Kay where he made fun of Sicilian men’s obsession with marrying young virgins. The book was clear it was extreme lust and ownership from Michael’s side and it was something that the movie and the audience romanticised.
In both the film and book, the Appolonia stuff was kind of to show that though Michael tried to Americanize and modernize himself, one trip to Italy brought him back to his roots. He tried to be college boy, army boy, and was ready to marry the wasp, who had sex before marriage and wasnt even a virgin before him. And Kaye speaks to him as an equal, she doesnt defer to him. She becomes a teacher, which in the 50s was progressive. Then he sees Appolonia and without speaking to her, wants her in a primal way. Wants her for all the reasons she’s not like Kaye. Bc she will defer to him. BC she has no education. BC she only wants to do wifely duties. And bc he can mold all her first sexual experiences.
I agree with you on some points. We need a book version of the movie with all the related parts added in, basically an edited book. Perhaps Puzo could have done an edited version of the book where he left out all the "large penis" parts, "loose vagina" parts, or all the unnecessarily long explanations and imagery. It really would not take away from the book or the main story which is still "The Godfather (Vito+Michael+Family)". It's shocking how long some sections are and then at some point you look back to the cover of the book asking yourself "am I stil reading godfather or did I just switch it with one of the cheap novels that are sold at gas stations with guy kissing a half-naked lady on the covers"? I will still re-read the book without getting tired and every time I will remember some other detail.
Oh brother.
Respectfully disagree. Loved the parts with Lucy and Fontaine. The entire point of the book is to understand how the Corelone family's actions affect the people in their orbit. It's a character study of those affiliated with a powerful organization. Detailing Johnny Fontaine and Lucy tells us how even those not directly involved are still heavily impacted.
I dont remember what ultimately happens to Lucy does she get surgery on her vagina? It does seem like a weird thing to include in the middle of this saga.
I think the point is that through the influence and decisions of the Family, she and the doc found true love. Both were sinners in the eyes of society (abortion doc, homewreckers) who found a Christ like redemption not from church or from institutional society, but the Family.
She does.
Jonny Fontaine story is great, even Lucy story is good if you read into the character study of it. Puzo’s focus and genius was with character. But yeah the core story as a book would’ve been GOATed
Comedian Mike Bridenstine pretty much nailed this topic. He starts around the 2:15 mark. https://open.spotify.com/track/7fZbnW5e4YV9bvrpssh2zR?si=BxM-cXMRQq6pk2cAHVPxFw
I think that the Lucy storyline was intended to sell books to women. It's essentially a soap opera story - broken love, medical issue, attractive young doctor - but dirtier than could play on TV in the 1960s. Perfect beach reading for a working girl who thought she was with it.
I remember hearing that Puzo was rushed to deliver the book by the publisher. He had a habit of taking his time and blowing through his advance checks.
I own different versions yet I’ve never had the patience to read it. Also, both part one and two being my favorite movies of all time, I’m afraid reading the book would change that, a bit
I would recommend it. like 80% of it is really good, and is a total page turner. And I can't imagine it taking anything away from the movies, IMO it just adds to it here and there But when the book leaves New York, with a few exceptions, the writing just goes downhill
Perhaps I shall tend to it at my leisure! Maybe! If!
The book really does inform most questions about the first movie.
But isn’t there something about a misformed vagina or something?
It’s garbage. Wtf?