MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part III (1990) Discussion > Was the final shot necessary? (SPOILERS)

Was the final shot necessary? (SPOILERS)

posted 8 years ago by ElMaruecan82
11 replies | jump to latest

I mean, Michael Corleone falling from the chair, dying alone in Sicily with only a dog as witness.

Wasn't the death of his daughter enough? His character's arc was closed by this ultimate tragedy, and it was easy to figure that he would live a miserable life after that.

I could have done with the last shot of him, twenty years older, putting his glasses and remembering the past, it was obvious he would die soon, but Coppola could have spared us the sight of one of the most iconic characters dying in such a pathetic way, we had the major upset already.

Darth Vader is scary and I  The Godfather

[–] westrnphlyr2000-952-221623 8 years ago

I get what you are saying but I also think that was the point. Michael, who after decades of doing what he did, under the auspices of the love and protection of his family ends up with nothing and no one in the last moment of his life essentially cementing the complete futility of everything he tried to do and be. The ultimate tragedy.

[–] krisos 8 years ago

I completely agree.

The part before with the death of his daughter and the silent scream is one of my favourite moments in the trilogy but the final 30 seconds of this film are unnecessary.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I also found that final shot tacky and although we already know Michael would end up alone and miserable, do we really need to see him topple over with a dog for company? Michael deserves better than that and showing it that way really did disservice for such a great character IMO.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

Necessary for Coppola to ensure he wouldn't have to make Godfather Part IV. ;)

[–] Egosomnia (865) 4 years ago

Nobody noticed how unintentionally friggin HILARIOUS it was?? It was like a spoof, or a comedy sketch.

[–] enriquesingh (1812) 4 years ago

They could always tell the years that took place before his death... or just the rise of a new generation without Michael.

They both sound like terrible ideas, but anything can happen.

It could be a standalone story in "The Godfatherverse".

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6543) 4 years ago

That's true, but that would be somewhat weakened by the fact that you know how Michael dies, that you know he won't get gunned down. Unless they would do a deconstruction that reveals what we thought was Michael dying was actually his clone. ;)

Another reason to have this final scene, I guess, was to make a parallel with the last scene of Don Vito.

[–] Melton (5549) 6 months ago

Yes, it’s one of the greatest shots in the trilogy, and it’s criminal that Coppola removed it from the terrible ‘Coda’ version.

Seeing Michael decades later, abandoned by everyone, pathetically slump over dead, a solitary orange rolling out of his hand, is profoundly tragic. A perfect ending to the epic story.

[–] Aylmer (620) 4 months ago

I'm a bigger fan of the film than most but I found the last shot to be utterly unnecessary and 'on the nose'. It reminded me of that Monty Python sketch where "and two years later, he died of cancer"... or one of those hilarious blurbs at the end of Filipino movies in the 80's that had to convey that crime doesn't pay and that the vigilante hero later turned himself in to authorities and died of suicide in prison.

[–] ak47wong (639) 4 months ago

One of the greatest shots in the trilogy? It’s not even in the top 50 for me.

[–] redban (6771) 3 months ago

The final shot, showing Michael’s death, felt tacked on: the scene didn’t feel like an organic conclusion. His daughter dies, and everyone is mourning on the opera house steps. Then suddenly, he’s sitting in Sicily and dies? There was no transition from one to other. Just suddenly they show his death

I think they slapped on the final scene only because they felt they had to retire the Michael Corleone character. Maybe Pacino told them that this movie was it for him or something?