The Importance of Characters in The Godfather and Godfather Part II

When discussing the merits and potential improvements to The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, a heated debate often arises: why would someone suggest removing any characters from these iconic films? Both films are widely considered to be among the finest pieces of cinematic art, with each character meticulously crafted to enhance the narrative. However, upon closer examination, one character stands out as a potential candidate for removal: Francis "Five Hoops" Pentangeli. This article explores why every character is essential and why Pentangeli could be a subject for reconsideration.

Every Character is Significant

One might argue that the films are perfect as they are, and no changes should be made. Every character has a role to play and contributes to the overall narrative. Removing George Hamilton's performance as Budgett Harrison might be justifiable, as he is considered a weak actor. But the defense is stronger when considering the character of Frank Pentangelli. While some may argue that his role is integral, the fact remains that Pentangelli could be a red herring in the story, and his presence serves more to extend the runtime and potentially confuse viewers.

The Case for Removing Francis "Five Hoops" Pentangelli

Francois Pentangelli is often seen as a missed opportunity. In the world of The Godfather, his portrayal is complex and often perplexing. His character appears to serve more as a distraction than a meaningful addition to the storyline. For instance, many viewers might argue that a simple throwaway line during a flashback sequence might have helped clarify his role, which remains somewhat ambiguous. Moreover, his inclusion in the broader narrative does not offer much clarity or purpose beyond serving as a red herring and a way to pad the runtime. Commentary on the film suggests that such characters detract from the overall story rather than adding to it.

When analyzing the production, it is notable that Paramount's reluctance to pay Richard Castellano this was a significant issue. This led to the character's reduced role, further diminishing the quality of the production. A similar issue arose during the production of Godfather Part III, where Robert Duvall's contribution was also minimized. The net effect was a compromise in the quality of the film. It seems that either Paul Roth or Pentangelli could have propelled the betrayal plot forward, but Roth is viewed as less of a compromise compared to Pentangelli.

Revisiting Lee Strasberg's Hyman Roth

Evaluation of the character of Hyman Roth, played by Lee Strasberg, brings up concerns. Despite recognizing the necessity of his presence for the film, there is a belief that a different actor could have made this character more compelling. Strasberg's portrayal is often criticized. It is suggested that Roth, who is based on the real-life Meyer Lansky, should be played by someone who exudes the same dangerous and impactful presence. Replacing Strasberg with an actor who truly embodies the character could have significantly improved the narrative's impact. Other adversaries in the films, such as Sollozzo and other Corleone enemies, are given more depth and danger by actors like Al Lettieri, Richard Conte, and Alex Rocco.

In conclusion, while The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are celebrated masterpieces, critical examination reveals that certain characters can be reconsidered. The likeliest candidate for removal is Francois Pentangelli, whose role, while seen as integral by some, actually detracts from the clarity and coherence of the narrative. This article aims to prompt further discussion on the importance of character selection and portrayal in cinema.