Corrected entry: Prior to going off to kill McCluskie and Sollozzo, Michael is "trained" by Clemenza in how to shoot a pistol - as if Michael has no experience with firearms. Yet as a Marine who just returned from war - especially one decorated for battlefield heroism - it would be expected that Michael had both formal training and practical "fluency" with a range of firearms. Granted Michael might be anxious about committing brazen murder in public and even more so about whether the gun indeed will arrive for him in the right place at the right time at the restaurant - these are natural and plausible things for Clemenza to counsel him on. But the actual *use* of the firearm should present Michael no problem at all. And yet Clemenza talks to Michael as if he has never fired a weapon... Plot-wise, is there too much effort here expended on trying to depict Michael as being, at this point, naive, so as to enhance the "end-of-innocence" pivot that the murder of McCluskie and Sollozzo will come to signify, both for Michael's father Vito and the audience?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: Clemenza is basically telling him specifically how to use that gun, such as about the tape and why it's so loud. As well, killing people in war is far different than murdering someone in cold blood. Clemenza is telling him how to keep calm while doing it and how to avoid being caught by the police.
Greg Dwyer