MovieChat Forums > Porcile (1969) Discussion > I can't believe no one else has noticed ...

I can't believe no one else has noticed this!!!

posted 18 years ago by DC1977
15 replies | jump to latest

Pasolini sometimes split his films into halves like there was to be an intermission.

At the start of the second half of Porcile, a guy is playing a recorder-like instrument at the top of a bell-tower and the annoyingly cheerful Pasolini regular Ninetto Davoli is dancing away to the music.

A group of people then gather at a big house, Davoli being one of them.

What amazes me is that no one seems to have noticed that the big house is the same one that Coppola used in each of the Godfather films!!

In the first film, it’s where Michael Corleone (Pacino) stays when is in hiding in Sicily, in Part II Vito (De Niro) has an al fresco meal there and gives gifts to his friends and Michael returns there in Part III.

Coppola used Franco Citti (another Pasolini regular) in Part I and III so he may have used this location as a reference to Pasolini although he makes no mention of it in The Godfather DVD audio commentaries.

Perhaps it was just a coincidence that the same place was used but it is DEFINITELY the same house.

I've tried to add this to the trivia sections of both Porcile and The Godfather but the IMDb hasn't accepted it. Clearly not many people have seen both films and been able to verify this.

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 18 years ago

That's interesting, I'll have to look for that... Another link between Porcile and The Godfather: Franco Citti. He plays one of Michael's bodyguards when he goes to Sicily in I.

[–] DC1977 18 years ago

I know, I said he appeared in Parts I and III in my original post :-)

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 18 years ago

I apologize for responding to your post without actually saying anything. I was possibly being attacked by some sort of hostile, invading narrative force.

But concerning Franco Citti...

[–] DC1977 17 years ago

What?

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 16 years ago

Franco Citti was actually in the Godfather, is what I was trying to tell you.

[–] DC1977 15 years ago

I said that in the first post of this thread...

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 14 years ago

If you said it, then why do you feel it necessary to state it twice? I agree with you that he is in the Godfather. In fact, he is in the Godfather III. I can't believe no one else has noticed this...

And I will say something else too... One day...

[–] DC1977 14 years ago

It was necessary because I have to keep reminding you that you are making points that I've already made before.

[–] DC1977 14 years ago

Incidentally, well done on your attempt at being funny.

You pulled it off really well.

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 13 years ago

I'm sorry. Actually, the first time, I was intoxicated and just kind of didn't pay attention to what you wrote unconsciously, because I noticed it on my own. All the other times I was *beep* around. I found it very amusing. I apologize, even for silly net behavior-- Because you are after all an admirer of Pasolini (to whom respect is owed as if it were an ethical imperative)

[–] DC1977 12 years ago

You're an idiot.

[–] TheRepublicOfMiranda 12 years ago

Will you be titillated, sir, when I inform you that I am far from concurring?

[–] DC1977 10 years ago

I'm not expecting you to agree but your response proves that I'm right.

[–] Kammurabi 8 years ago

That was some *beep* excellent gentlemanly trolling though.

.

[–] amd8404 11 years ago

I didn't really believe you were correct, but after looking at both films I do agree. To save other people the trouble, I made screenshots. I believe you really only get a good establishing shot of the house in Godfather Part II, so that's all I'm including here.

Pigsty:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/civshark/p-01_zps957dffcb.jpg

Godfather Part II:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q146/civshark/g2-02_zpsa0bffc57.jpg

As you can see there's not really any discrepancies architecturally, besides the gardening. Both have what I believe is a square well in the front lawn and an outside staircase that's to the left of the house as you look at it (not shown in that screenshot of Pigsty, but it's there in other shots).

Very unusual that this would happen, but I have two theories.

1) Coppola saw Pigsty and either liked the house so much or just remembered it when he went to film The Godfather. Someone else could figure out the timeline, but since Pigsty was released in 1969 it probably wasn't very long after that that Coppola began scouting locations.

2) Maybe it was a practical reason, like the owner of the house just decided that rather than renovate the house and find a proper tenant he would rent it out to film crews. Or maybe it was owned by a municipality that wanted to encourage filming so would rent it for cheap to filmmakers. I know you can visit the house today, so I imagine someone knows its history of ownership.

It kind of makes me mad that this still isn't reflected on the IMDb pages of the 4 films, because it really is a great piece of trivia. This is exactly why IMDb should be a Wiki site rather than a moderated one. I've personally had trouble ramming correct, inarguable pieces of information through their capricious submission process. Often once you submit something you'll just never receive a response and be left to wonder why it was rejected by whoever reviewed it. Then a lot of times if you just resubmit it's accepted.

I suppose the moderation allows them to keep people from posting false rumors about current productions, but for these older films they are holding back what IMDb could be as a resource for film fans.