When I first saw this movie, I thought the time period of the film would be current with the time of its release, considering how old Al Pacino is supposed to look. However, it is set in 1979. Just 20 years after pre-Castro Cuba. Michael was not that old during The Godfather II. If Michael was in his 30s he would just be in his 50s by this point.
Thoughts ?
The movie is set 16 years after Godfather II.
In real life, the actors were 16 years older than when they made Godfather II.
Everybody is the age they are supposed to be.
True but they purposely aged Pacino by another 10 years. Look at him during TGF3 interviews at that time. He did not look that old in 1989-1990.
shareJust as they aged Brando in the original to look older than he was in real life, the same was done to Pacino in this film.
Pacino was 49-50 when Godfather 3 was made, yet for the film, Michael is supposed to be a decade older. I feel they should have just stuck to his real life age because turning him into a sickly old man just felt unnecessary.
You especially see Pacino in "Glengarry Glenn Ross" two years later, and he looks great! Even with Pacino's smoking.
shareMichael was born in 1917. He is 62 during the main action of "Godfather III" and 80 when he dies in 1997.
shareHe's got that diabetes problem in the story -- recall that somewhat poor scene where he goes into diabetic shock and the Vatican guys bring him orange juice and candy bars(they have it RIGHT THERE...somebody must have warned them in advance.)
So perhaps the illness prematurely aged him.
That or SPOILER...
... having his own brother killed.
They meant for Michael to look 62, not prematurely aged by diabetes.
shareAgreed. He looks too old. And, the hairdo was wrong. I think that the filmmakers later acknowledged that. Maybe Michael looks older because diabetes has run him down. You look at Diane Keaton and Talia Shire and they look 16 years older, but no more. I don't know if Coppola has discussed Michael's advanced aging.
sharePart 3 has so many inconsistencies working against it. As you pointed out, the LOOK of the characters and the settings don't match the time period. Seems that Coppola and crew figured a little long and greasy hair paired with some dark leathery jackets would suffice to create that grizzled 70s LOOK and FEEL, but if you watch it side by side with New York movies from the 70s like Taxi Driver, Annie Hall, Kramer vs Kramer, and ...and Justice, for All it doesn't match at all.
They should have kept Al's hair style the same as it looked at the closing shot of Godfather 2 where it was suppose to be some dozen years into the future as the camera zooms into his greyed out hair and tired eyes as he reflects. In fact, it would have been a great opening to start Part 3 from that very scene itself.
Another peeve of mine was Francis and the studio's failure to win Robert Duvall's commitment to coming back into the fray. Replacing him with George Hamilton is akin to replacing Chewbacca with Jar Jar Binks or Yoda with Danny DeVito.
Replacing him with George Hamilton is akin to replacing Chewbacca with Jar Jar Binks or Yoda with Danny DeVito.
Isn’t it somewhat ironic that the same filmmakers who made iconic films in the 70s were, in the 90s, unable to emulate the very decade that they made their earlier masterpieces in? The fashion styles, production design, makeup for the cast just doesn’t feel 70s at all. You’d think since they all lived through that decade that they’d have no trouble capturing the feel of the period, but they completely failed even at that.
shareI don't if it's ironic or just incompetence. Marty's production crew did a great job with "Goodfellas" in capturing each era from the 50s all the way to the early 80s. He achieved this again with "Casino" as well.
Where FFC did better with his footage in Sicily but that was more of a convenience as that whole country's infrastructure hasn't really modernized for centuries so all they really had to do was use older cars. The Sicilian Twin body guards looked too good though like right out of an Italy GQ ad.