Luca made no sense.


A dangerous hitman would be somebody cunning, clever and dishonest. Somebody ruthless who could act like your best friend just before he shot you in the head.

Luca was a brain dead moron. It takes little strength to pull a trigger. It takes smarts to get close enough and then not get caught after. Size and strength mean nothing. He could have been a leg breaker or muscle for the Don but as a primo hitman no way.

We saw how he was outsmarted and killed by Sollozo. No problem at all.

reply

Luca was a brain dead moron. It takes little strength to pull a trigger. It takes smarts to get close enough and then not get caught after. Size and strength mean nothing. He could have been a leg breaker or muscle for the Don but as a primo hitman no way.


Not necessarily. A button man only needed to be a good marksman and fearless. Brasi was both of those. More importantly, being inarticulate is not an indication of intelligence. Brasi may have been a lot shrewder than the few minutes of screen time he got.

And for contrast, let's look at Willie Cicci from GF II. The senator asking him questions had to explain his questions to him. He wasn't any more articulate than Luca was. I would say Clemenza was probably the brightest of the enforcers in the family.

We saw how he was outsmarted and killed by Sollozo. No problem at all.


I agree with you there, but was Vito any smarter? It was Vito's plan after all, not Brasi's. Brasi simply did as he was ordered to do.

But that very question in fact led me to ask a very similar question as yours on this board. I wondered if the book might have the answer the film didn't provide. The book was far more detailed, and the thread cited below is far more involved than I can cover here. I suggest you read the whole thread. The guy who responded gave a very detailed answer about the failed plot to install Brasi in the Tattaglia family:

https://moviechat.org/tt0068646/The-Godfather/5c60b5d294ad9a7fa7578c3b/Question-for-those-that-read-the-book




reply

"A button man only needed to be a good marksman and fearless. Brasi was both of them."

No because completing the hit is only part one the other is not getting caught by the police. To be a prolific hit man you need to complete the act safely(For you) and not get arrested. You can't have witnesses and leave evidence. You need to move swiftly.

As we learned from Lefty in Donnie Brasco many mob hits come from your best friends and acquaintances who will pop you in the head when you least expect it.

Regarding Vito's plan to infiltrate Luca into the Tattaglias it was not smart. Either Sollozo and Tattaglia simply did not believe Luca's intentions or choose to not care. They saw an opportunity to execute Luca. Luca allowed himself to be vulnerable to the hit.

reply

Luca made perfect sense, although you are partly right about not being cunning enough.
In the movie they don't explain how Luca actually approached Solozzo. He was sleeping usually with prostitutes, may of them under Tattaglia's employ, and when the Don gave him the order to infiltrate, he started dropping subtle hints to the girls that he is not happy enough about earnings. That was his plan, to get approached by Tattaglia. He was aware that the girls reported everything their clients said. Don't forget that his purpose was to get into a meeting with Tattaglia, so he did the job that the Don gave him.
His plan failed because of 3 things :
1. His reputation : everybody knew that if the don got hit, Luca will react irrespectively of who is in command of the Corleone family, so naturally he had the biggest target painted on him. You kill everything that you cannot negociate with. I would argue that his death conditioned the hit on the Don. Which takes us to point 2
2 . The ony one who is a complete moron is the Don. You don't send your top guy alone to gather information, especially when he has the reputation from point 1. Luca followed his orders blindly, even if he was fully aware that it was risky (he even took a vest to the meeting).
3. He did not suspect that they will kill him from the very first meeting. He expected them to want to get closer to him, find out information etc. But ... his reputation preceeded him so the turk and Tattaglia didnt take a single chance with him.

reply

I have to agree. This was one thing that was always strange to me. Regardless of how brutal and ruthless someone may be, people are going to see a big lumbering oaf like Luca coming from a mile away. I could buy him as a brutal mafia goon but not as a legendary hitman, performing feats that would require a lot of cunning and/or assistance to pull off. The only surprising thing about how easily Luca got taken out by Solozzo and friends was how it didn't happen sooner.

reply

Luca was a loyal lieutenant, so he did what he was told. It was Vito who appears to have badly misjudged the situation. What we see in this film is the importance of knowing when to strike, doing so ruthlessly, and lulling your opponent into a false sense of security. Vito clearly saw Sollozzo as someone to be concerned about, but he completely underestimated him and did not foresee that he and the Tataglia's were about to strike. That was not Luca's fault - he was just following orders: he was putting out feelers, having no conception that they were about to knock him off (if they were going to assassinate Don Corleone, obvious they would have to take out his "muscle" first).
Michael learns this both in his idea to nail Sollozzo and his ultimate plan to knock off the heads of the other families. The other families thought he was a vulnerable greenhorn, and he lulled them into a false sense of security by accepting the offer to meet with the Tataglia's, which they took as a sign that he did not see his assassination coming. So they didn't see his move and were much easier targets as a result.

reply

Vito clearly saw Sollozzo as someone to be concerned about, but he completely underestimated him and did not foresee that he and the Tataglia's were about to strike.


I asked the same question on this forum because I came to that same conclusion. It seemed so out of place for Vito to have so badly misjudged the situation and ended up getting Luca killed. It turns out that the movie, as long as it was, truncated enough of the Brasi/Tataglia family arc to make it look like Vito was grossly negligent. The book, as they usually are, was far more detailed with the subplot of Luca infiltrating the Tataglia family. This is the thread in which I asked that question, and a poster named BullSchmidt gave me a detailed response which explains what happened. It's a bit long but an excellent read:


https://moviechat.org/tt0068646/The-Godfather/5c60b5d294ad9a7fa7578c3b/Question-for-those-that-read-the-book

A simplified version is that a whore reported to the Tataglias that Brasi wasn't happy with the Corleones. The Tataglias tried to recruit Brasi and he showed interest, but didn't jump at the offer in order to make his possibility of jumping ship more legitimate. When the Tartaglias decided to attempt the hit on Vito, they made a final offer to Brasi who did NOT accept it, so they killed him knowing he might be a problem after Vito was dead.

reply

Thank you for the kind words. As you might recall, after re-reading parts of The Godfather and realizing there are two quite different versions of Luca in the book, I changed my mind about some things. So, anyone who sees that thread and is put off by the length should go directly to the bottom and start with my post that begins, "I'm doing that as a fresh reply." I had got some important things wrong before then and had to do a 180 degree turnabout on those issues.

I have to amend something I said in that part. I said that the insane Luca is only present in the flashback sections, and if you read only the parts of the novel set in 1945 or later you get a quite different Luca. But Filomena tells Michael about Luca murdering his own baby in post-1945 Sicily. I had mistakenly thought that was in the middle, 1930s section of the novel. The novel has three parts. The first and third are post-World War II, and the middle part is set earlier. Filomena's tale is told in the third part, and the whole business with Sollozzo happens in the first, where Luca comes off as a quite sane character. I'm still comfortable saying that Puzo seems to have had two different stories he was trying to merge together, wasn't able to do so seamlessly, and one of the results is two different Luca Brasis. But anyone wishing to call upon this error would have valid reason for disagreement.

To use Sollozzo's words, Vito really was slipping. Luca was cozying up to Bruno Tattaglia, trying to give the impression that he wanted to do free lance work in their narcotics operation. His real motive was to gain intelligence for Vito on what they and Sollozzo were up to. When he was unable to do so, Vito told him to keep trying but only as a sideline. His mistake was only thinking as far as, "well, that didn't work," and not considering the matter further. When the Tattaglias immediately offered Luca full membership in the Tattaglia Family, that made perfect sense. Luca was one of a kind. And as you may recall, Luca didn't accept the offer but didn't turn it down either, and he and Bruno left it as an open offer. But if Luca was such hot stuff -- and he was -- why didn't the Tattaglias go ahead and hire him for free lance work while continuing to try to recruit him into their Family? That didn't make sense. But apparently Vito never even consided that.

reply


Thanks again. I've put The Godfather on my list of re-reads for the future. The last time I read that novel was before the film came out (my brother had the paperback) and I was quite young.

reply

As important as The Godfather is in movie history, as big a blockbuster as it was in 1972, and as much as I like it personally...

...i was there for its opening engagements in 1972 and I recall thinking that a number of things were cut, and a number of castings weren't quite right, and they had REALLY given Luca Brasi short shrift in the movie versus the book.

The actor hired to play Luca was indeed, rather dopey looking, comical. And in his wedding gift scene with Don Vito, he was played pretty much for laughs ("I am going to leave you now...")

The Luca of the book got more scenes and some truly terrifying backstory -- he throws his baby into the furnace; he ties two enemies into chairs and gags them, chopping off body parts of one while the other chokes on his gag and dies in terror of what he sees.

Just a much, much scarier man than who we got in the movie.

Indeed, even with its 3 hour length, the movie had to cut a lot out from the book -- the whole DeNiro part was moved out (Godfather II wasn't a certainty then.)

That said, these reminders from the book demonstrate that Luca had been working on the Tattglias for a lot longer than the movie suggests , and yeah-- Luca wore a bullet proof vest(little use against a garrote) but probably didn't anticipate trouble at the first meeting.

reply

> [In the movie Luca] was played pretty much for laughs ("I am going to leave you now...")

You think that was intentional? The story I've always heard is that Lenny Montana was so nervous doing a scene with Marlon Brando that he did a clumsy job acting, but Coppola liked it because it seemed to fit the character; Luca would be nervous around Vito. Although I agree there are comical aspects to the scene. "May their first child be a masculine child" always cracks me up. Sounds like Luca's wishing that Carlo and Connie's first baby will be born with a hairy chest, full beard, etc.

> i was there for its opening engagements in 1972

I was too young. I've never seen it in a theater. I know it's been nearly fifty years, but do you recall whether that scene got giggles and laughs from the audience?

> The Luca of the book got more scenes and some truly terrifying backstory -- he throws his baby into the furnace; he ties two enemies into chairs and gags them, chopping off body parts of one while the other chokes on his gag and dies in terror of what he sees.

At times he comes off as a psychopath. Yet at other parts he seems quite sane. My theory is that Puzo had two different stories he was trying to merge together and wasn't entirely successful at doing so smoothly, and that one result of that is two different Lucas in the book. What do you think?

> Indeed, even with its 3 hour length, the movie had to cut a lot out from the book -- the whole DeNiro part was moved out (Godfather II wasn't a certainty then.)

Some parts of that book were best left out -- the stuff with Nino Valenti, Lucy Mancini, and Jules Segal. And Johnny Fontane's sole value in the movie is to serve as a plot device to ultimately get us to the wonderful horse head scene. But there's a lot of good stuff in the 1930s section that could have been used. The armed robbery by teenager Sonny, Vito's reaction to it, the assassination attempt on Vito, Sonny's acts while Vito was incapacitated, etc. Vito said that every man has but one destiny, and it might be interesting to watch Sonny step into his own. In the books (Puzo's and Winegarner's) he's supposed to be a very warmhearted and sentimental guy, when he's not doing things like beating up Carlo. Winegardner even presents him (in recollection after his death by his widow and daughters) as the Corleone most likely to shed a few tears when watching a sad movie. Caan's performance did portray that Sonny was more than just a violent hothead, but mostly was limited to showing that he had a clownish side too. I don't know if those parts of Puzo's novel could be made into a good movie, exploring Sonny's character and his relationship with Vito, but I'd think it would be worth at least trying a treatment and maybe a rough draft script to see if that story has any potential. Maybe they've already done that. But on the other hand, that movie would necessarily have no actors in common with any of the prior three, and I suspect many fans would therefore regard it as a blasphemy.

reply


The Godfather and II were movies of the ages, but given the amount of material in the book, might also have made an intriguing miniseries.



reply

As I said, many fans -- in fact, I think most -- would consider a remake to be blasphemy. I wouldn't mind seeing it redone as a miniseries if it was well done, incorporated new material instead of just redoing the original, and explored characters in new ways. That's asking a lot though. In my experience, most sequels and remakes fall short of the originals.

If it had been originally made as a miniseries they would have had to tone it down, because of the broadcast standards of that time. I remember when The Godfather was first broadcast on network TV. You couldn't say "son of a bitch" on television in those days, so they overdubbed those lines with "son of a buck," which was quite hilarious.

reply


Good point on the network standards of the time.

I would never submit to sitting through a remake of the Godfather, or other hallowed films like Gone With The Wind etc., but a well done miniseries done today might be a worthy project if they select actors based on merit and not for popularity, even if ultimately they all are unknowns (which I think would be a better idea in any case).

reply

"If" ... big "if." I watched two remakes over the past year. One was a miniseries on Peacock TV, Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." It had never been done as a miniseries before, but had been made into TV movies in 1980 and in 1998. The 1980 movie was very faithful to the book, although it incorporated some (then) contemporary gags. The 1998 version was less faithful, and the 2020 miniseries even less so. I didn't entirely like or dislike it, but I won't go out of my way to watch it again. OTOH, the book is one of my favorite novels and I've watched the 1980 movie several times.

The other was Stephen King's "The Stand," which had previously been made into a miniseries in 1994. The 1994 miniseries had some problems. It was directed by Mick Garris, who IMO has a unique talent for sucking the drama out of anything he films. Not the best person to have directing a horror tale. (He also directed the miniseries version of The Shining, which was far worse.) But it was generally watchable, despite its problems and some miscasting, and was faithful to the book. The 2020 miniseries was wretchedly bad, for a lot of reasons, and they changed a lot of things. King wrote some new material for it. I personally think Stephen King hit his peak in the early 1980s and has been on a slow, downhill slide ever since, and what I saw here did nothing to dissuade me from that belief. I and other King fans who saw it discussed it here and were groaning with disgust, laughing at it for all the wrong reasons, etc. It was on CBS All Access, which I subscribed to just to see the miniseries.

So, if they ever do a miniseries of The Godfather I'll watch it, but I'll be keeping my fingers crossed. My guess is they'd move it to the present day and screw it up in other ways.

reply


My guess is they'd move it to the present day and screw it up in other ways.


Nothing would surprise me. A modern day GF would be similar to the Sopranos. A lot of the charm of the GF movies was the period pieces.

reply

> A modern day GF would be similar to the Sopranos.

It's already happened. Have you heard of "The Family Corleone," by Ed Falco? https://www.amazon.com/Family-Corleone-Ed-Falco/dp/0446574635

I found it unreadable and couldn't finish it, but apparently fans as a whole like it. As of today, 83% of those who rated it on Amazon gave it 4 or 5 stars. Stylistically it owes more to The Sopranos and Goodfellas than to Puzo's creation.

I'm not saying Godfather authors should try to ape Puzo. Mark Winegardner understood this and simply wrote in his own style. Some fans didn't like the Winegardner books. I did overall, but I agree with the general criticism that there's about 1-1/2 books worth of good material in the two books. But turning The Godfather story into a clone of something that's established and quite different? No. That's like taking 2001: A Space Odyssey's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" theme and performing it as a jazz piece.

There were other reasons I disliked the book. Far too many Italian words and phrases, so many that Falco included a glossary. I don't want to have to frequently look up stuff, I just want the story. Puzo used maybe a half dozen Italian words in The Godfather and that worked just fine. James Clavell used somewhat more Japanese in Shogun but did it so skillfully it didn't pose a problem for the reader; we learned what we language we needed to know as the English protagonist did. Well, Falco's no Clavell.

Also, some very clumsy POV shifts. Endless namedropping, a hallmark of "media fiction" -- in reality, things to feed readers' egos when they see some very minor character from Puzo's work mentioned and say to themselves, "hey, I know who that is, see, I'm a real fan!" Carelessness with continuity -- at one point a character sits in her kitchen sweltering because the furnace is stuck on full and the repairman won't be there until the next day; moments later she pulls her bathrobe around her to keep warm. Some cringeworthy syntax -- "The boys were in suits and ties as they walked on either side of Luca." (So these things happened simultaneously? The boys donned suits and ties, walked with Luca, then disrobed when they stopped walking?)

Yeah, Luca. Among other things, The Family Corleone is Luca's backstory, which is why I critiqued it at some length, as it's relevant to the thread. Obviously I don't recommend it.

> A lot of the charm of the GF movies was the period pieces.

Agreed. I don't know if there's an Oscar category for production design, but Dean Tavoularis should have got an award for his work.

reply

It's already happened. Have you heard of "The Family Corleone," by Ed Falco? https://www.amazon.com/Family-Corleone-Ed-Falco/dp/0446574635

I found it unreadable and couldn't finish it, but apparently fans as a whole like it. As of today, 83% of those who rated it on Amazon gave it 4 or 5 stars. Stylistically it owes more to The Sopranos and Goodfellas than to Puzo's creation.


I hadn't heard of it, no. Given your review, I think I'll pass on it.

I am one of those people who worked my brain to a mush in my career(s) as an engineer and then in management. When I want to be entertained, I want to be entertained damn it. I don't want to have to study to enjoy something, and using a glossary to read a book is too much like work.

reply

I've only read one other book which is "media fiction," in the modern sense. I'm a casual Star Trek fan, not a fanatic. When Star Trek fell in love with itself I lost interest. But there are some of the original series and Next Generation episodes I'll still watch occasionally. About fifty years ago I got two Star Trek novels. One was Mission To Horatius by Mack Reynolds, the other was Spock Must Die by James Blish. Both were good reads, although Mission To Horatius is a book for kids, which was fine, because I was a kid at the time.

There have been a gazillion Star Trek novels since then, and a couple of years ago I decided to try one that was set in the world of the original series. It had many of the same elements I've criticized The Family Corleone for. Namedropping of bit characters from the television series, ego feed for readers to feel "in the know." Even though it had the entire galaxy as its backdrop with trillions of sentient beings, it seemed like everybody knew everyone else. "Encounters with greatness" -- all sorts of people who had come into contact with the Enterprise and had gone on to do remarkable things. And one utterly absurd moment when an adult, human man, here on Earth, leaped four hundred feet. He was a genetically enhanced man but even so, that's ridiculous.

I know a writer and asked her about it. She's never done media fiction but knows something about the industry. What she said was half from her knowledge, half guesswork.

Fiction writing is generally not a lucrative occupation. Successes like JK Rowling and Stephen King are rare exceptions. If an author can simply make enough money to do writing as full-time work, that's a hell of an accomplishment. The typical advance for a novel is in the high four figures. Most novels never sell beyond their advances.

Media fiction pays well. For example, it's an open secret that there are about 100,000 people in the US who are so fanatical about Star Trek that they buy everything -- every book, every Captain Kirk action figure, every set of Enterprise blueprints, et cetera. If they're missing something, it's agony to them. Well, assuming $10 per book and a 6% royalty rate, that's a million bucks in sales and sixty grand for the author. So of course the authors and publishers love that part of it. Makes the typical book look pathetic.

But that million in sales is tiny compared to what the movies make, and the licensing fees the publishers pay Paramount are utterly insignificant by that scale. The owners of Star Trek have no reason to care about the licensing fees from the book publishers, and might even charge as little as a dollar. But they do make a hell of a lot of money from Star Trek generally. It's their golden goose that keeps laying platinum eggs, day after day. They know how to manage it and they do it well. They almost certainly view those books not as creative works in their own right but instead as being like action figures and such -- items to keep fans interested until the next movie or television series. And they probably impose very strict guidelines on what the books are like. They're not intended to be good stories. They're intended to extol the greatness of Star Trek and make readers feel like insiders.

So, authors write them. They make a lot of money. But they feel like such whores that occasionally they'll show contempt for their readers by putting in stupid things, like a man leaping four hundred feet.

That's her theory. Again, half knowledge, half guesses. But it sounds reasonable to me.

What puzzles me is why The Family Corleone was written in this way. If there was another movie planned, or perhaps a television series, it would make sense. Maybe at that time they were toying with the idea of a movie, who knows?

Anyway, I don't think I'll be reading much more of that genre.

reply

> [In the movie Luca] was played pretty much for laughs ("I am going to leave you now...")

You think that was intentional? The story I've always heard is that Lenny Montana was so nervous doing a scene with Marlon Brando that he did a clumsy job acting, but Coppola liked it because it seemed to fit the character; Luca would be nervous around Vito.

---

I didn't realize that Montana was himself nervous...hey, its a GOOD scene, this man who is at least DESCRIBED (by Michael) as a pretty scary guy and he just can't hold it together with Don Vito. You've even got Don Vito asking Tom if he REALLY has to meet with Luca...but he does it.

--

Although I agree there are comical aspects to the scene. "May their first child be a masculine child" always cracks me up. Sounds like Luca's wishing that Carlo and Connie's first baby will be born with a hairy chest, full beard, etc.

---

Ha. It also tracks with the male-centric nature of the whole story: wives hidden away, mistresses always available (Kay fights all of this, but doesn't win in this one); Don Vito saying "Men can never be careless, women and children can be careless, but not men." Don Vito slapping Fontaine and saying "you can be a MAN" (not, it is implied...a gay man.) It was "the era" and in 1972, it pushed some buttons, I think.

--

CONT

reply

CONT

> i was there for its opening engagements in 1972

I was too young. I've never seen it in a theater. I know it's been nearly fifty years, but do you recall whether that scene got giggles and laughs from the audience?

---

I'm pretty sure it did...I'm pretty sure I remember.

A benefit of being the age I am is getting to remember movie experiences like that. It was HARD to get to see The Godfather. I waited two months for the lines to die down(it was only playing on one screen in my city.) and STILL waited for two hours(playing cards with an Italian-American friend whose relative was in the movie) before I got in. I tell you, when that curtain went up on the darkness and FINALLY we all heard "I believe in America" -- the long wait was over and that crowd was TRANSFIXED.

And The Godfather played that one screen in that one theater in that one town..for about six months..

CONT

reply

>CONT

The Luca of the book got more scenes and some truly terrifying backstory -- he throws his baby into the furnace; he ties two enemies into chairs and gags them, chopping off body parts of one while the other chokes on his gag and dies in terror of what he sees.

At times he comes off as a psychopath. Yet at other parts he seems quite sane. My theory is that Puzo had two different stories he was trying to merge together and wasn't entirely successful at doing so smoothly, and that one result of that is two different Lucas in the book. What do you think?

---

I can't much remember that dichotomy, because I can't much remember the book. (Except of course in the paperback, pages 28-29. The most memorable of sex scenes in a novel filled with them.)

I think I remember more of the "horror stories" about Luca Brasi and how Puzo made him seem like a human monster -- albeit loyal to The Godfather. The Don Vito on the paperback cover of The Godfather looked rather like a monster, too -- I always felt that The Godfather(the book) was sold for horror as much as anything ("They use guns, knives, axes, and garrotes! screamed the dust jacket blurb.) Of course, it was was sold for sex, too.

Little didn't anybody know that amidst all the sex and carnage...was a great story waiting to be stripped down and sent out into the world.

CONT

reply

CONT

Some parts of that book were best left out -- the stuff with Nino Valenti, Lucy Mancini, and Jules Segal. And Johnny Fontane's sole value in the movie is to serve as a plot device to ultimately get us to the wonderful horse head scene.

--

As I think Pauline Kael pointed out in her review, The Godfather was Mario Puzo's attempt at writing a Harold Robbins novel in some ways -- like The Carpetbaggers or The Adventurers, which were made into profitable, not-good movies by Paramount. Robbins specialized in sex, soap opera and fictional characters based on real ones.

We all knew who Johnny and "Nino" were, and it was best to cut them out of the book and just retain Fontaine for serious uses in the film (Johnny was almost a lead in the book; Al Martino only gets a few scenes.)

The Lucy Mancini story(aka The Vegas Story) was simply a sexual detour. Its weird that Puzo wrote it at all -- it wasn't movie material in any form.

But this remains the really, really GREAT thing about The Godfather as we received it in 1972. Coppola, a skilled, Oscar winning screenwriter(Patton!) threw out almost all the sex(except a quickie version of pages 28-29), left in almost all of the violence...and made sure that the film took a dead serious look at matters of family, business, and government.

All the ways The Godfather could have gone WRONG...and it went RIGHT. That was exhilarating in 1972.

Even Luca Brasi was scary ENOUGH, and his death scene reminded us how hard he was to kill, and how defenseless Don Vito was without him.

reply

> I didn't realize that Montana was himself nervous

That's what I've heard. I've also heard another story -- and, as with anything that comes out of Hollywood, this has to be taken with a grain of salt -- that when they did a shot from behind Vito and facing Luca, as a prank Brando wrote "FUCK YOU" on a Post-it note and stuck it to his own forehead. Montana might have also been struggling to not break out laughing.

> A benefit of being the age I am is getting to remember movie experiences like that.

Understood. I'm in my late fifties. As I've said on here before, the cost of being old enough to remember Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon is gray hair, aching bones, et cetera.

> I can't much remember [Luca's] dichotomy, because I can't much remember the book.

A couple of years ago we got into a discussion here about whether Vito's sending Luca to try to ingratiate himself with the Tattaglias was a good idea. I had been recalling the book from memory, and late in the discussion I used my Kindle app and searched for every occurrence of "Luca" in The Godfather, to make sure I wasn't getting something wrong. When I did, I noticed that there seem to be two different versions of Luca Brasi in the novel. Rather than type it again I'll give the link to the thread. When I did notice that I had to do a complete 180 degree turn on some opinions I had held earlier. In the thread, it's my post that begins "I'm doing this as a fresh reply," near the bottom.

https://moviechat.org/tt0068646/The-Godfather/5c60b5d294ad9a7fa7578c3b/Question-for-those-that-read-the-book

For me, Lenny Montana's performance and the book's story of the baby and the furnace had so defined Luca, had so overwhelmed everything else about him, that I had never noticed that in other parts of the novel he comes off as a quite sane man. In that thread I called the two versions Hardass Luca (sane) and Wacko Luca. I also said that in the post-1945 sections we got Hardass Luca, and it's only in the middle, 1930s section that we got Wacko Luca. I got that slightly wrong. The furnace business did happen in the past, 1930s or perhaps earlier, but the midwife Filomena told Michael about it in post-1945 Sicily. But on the whole I'm still comfortable with my conclusions.

reply

Luca was an enforcer and a very visible menace to his enemies not a "dangerous hitman" which to me means an assassin, and they tend to stay anonymous or at best under the radar. Luca was a trusted henchman for Don Corleone, and their work together carried some legendary stories including the band leader who released Johnny Fontaine from a contract. You can say he was to Vito what The Mountain was to the Lannisters.

reply