Robert Duvall looks back on The Godfather, and the offer he refused for Part III
The Oscar winner reveals what he learned from Coppola and Brando and dissects his complicated relationships, onscreen and off, with the Corleones
Film Features The Godfather
The Godfather trilogy featured a murderer’s row of incredible, even iconic actors, but it’s Robert Duvall who buried all of the bodies in the first two films. Playing Tom Hagen, Duvall was the outsider as insider, wrestling with loyalty to the family that took him in as a teenager as well as the arm’s length distance required while Michael Corleone consolidates and strengthens the family’s criminal empire. That tension feels palpable in Duvall’s performance, and it encapsulates the relationship between legitimate enterprises, the Corleone empire, and the underworld bosses they fight for control.
Duvall recently spoke with The A.V. Club about his work on The Godfather, which commemorates its 50th anniversary this month with a release on digital and on 4K UHD. The Oscar-winning actor discussed his relationships on and off screen with members of the Corleone family, the differences between his acting technique and theirs (in particular, Marlon Brando’s), and his relationship with director Francis Ford Coppola before and after the making of The Godfather Part III, which he famously passed on. Duvall also reflected on the lessons he took from Coppola and other luminaries as he moved into directing himself.
The A.V. Club: It’s hard to say that any character in The Godfather is better written than any other, but Tom Hagen is just so brilliantly crafted—so knowledgeable and skilled, but just on the outside of everything. As an actor, was there anything that you did to maintain that little distance from the rest of the family?
Robert Duvall: As an actor and a character both, you can’t step over the line. He’s an adopted son, so he is a member of the family, kind of; maybe not a thousand percent, but he’s very important to the family. And as an actor, you can’t step over that line either. You have to kind of keep yourself in the background a little bit and then be called upon when needed.
AVC: I understand that at least some of the rehearsal process involved the family sitting down for dinner. What did that teach you about Tom, whether it was where you sat at the table, or just your interactions with the actors playing the rest of the Corleones?
RD: Well, the thing I remember most was that with [Marlon] Brando at the head of the table, the family made sense because Brando was like the head of the family. And in life he was for the most part an actor that so many young actors looked up to in a very intense way. He was “the guy,” so to speak, and we all felt that about him, each in an an individual way.
AVC: The 1970s was just one masterpiece after another, but was there any sense while filming The Godfather that it would have this longevity and legacy?
RD: Well, I’ve only felt that twice. I felt that about a third of the way through Godfather I. I said, “we’re really doing something I think pretty special here that will live on for a long time to come.” I felt that we were making a really important film.
AVC: Do you have a favorite scene from the film?
RD: Well, I guess thinking of the stuff I was in, when I had to tell Brando about Sonny’s death, that was pretty important. And when I went to see the head of the studio, the Woltz guy. He yelled at me and I kind of held my ground against him, I can remember that. But it was a wonderful part to play. Because as an adopted son, you can’t step over the line. And as an actor, I couldn’t step over the line, I was always a little bit behind things.
AVC: You mentioned the reputation that Brando brought to the set was so exciting and intimidating—
RD: No, not intimidating. It always felt equal.
AVC: Well, he obviously had a well-documented approach that was unique. He was such a great actor, and yet he also used cue cards sometimes for his dialogue. Were there any adjustments you had to make or anything that tested your approach while you were working with him on scenes?
RD: No, not really because I tried that once. I didn’t go that route. I felt that if you know your lines perfectly, you can still be very spontaneous. He did that because he claimed it made him spontaneous, but I think it was partially that and partially laziness.
AVC: Francis admits in the commentary for the original cut of The Godfather III that the film suffered from your absence, and you’ve said you have no regrets about passing on the film. Was it a business decision that you both understood? And was there a reconciliation, because you worked together so many times?
RD: Oh no, we stayed friends and he helped me with the editing of certain things I did. I haven’t talked to him much lately, but for a while there we talked a lot and conversed a lot definitely after that. Definitely, definitely. I visited his vineyard and him and so forth. He’s an interesting guy, interesting guy.
AVC: You worked with him four times. Which of those did you enjoy the most, whether it was the process of making it or just the end result of the film?
RD: Both. Both. I enjoyed Apocalypse Now, working with him, but also I enjoyed the Godfathers I and II a lot, working with him, definitely.
AVC: It’s so interesting looking at your ’70s film work. It seems like you were hiding your Southern accent until Tender Mercies, and that has been a different persona that you’ve carried forward. Did you have to conceal that side of you, or was that a product of the opportunities you were getting?
RD: No, I knew a wonderful young lady that once told me that “you can do rural, but you can do urban, too.” But I saw a film two nights ago that I had forgotten about called Convicts. It’s one of the best performances I’ve ever given. It definitely was very, very rural, by Horton Foote. You see, when I was coming up, Coppola and Horton Foote from Texas were very helpful in getting my career going and keeping it going. And then Ulu Grosbard, the film and stage director on the East Coast, I did like four theater pieces with him in one film. But whenever I’d get a script that I wanted an appraisal of, I would send it to Ulu and he would read it right away. So those three people were very instrumental in my developing as an actor.
AVC: One of my favorite films that you made is The Apostle. It’s one of the best movies I’ve seen about faith, and it’s such a remarkable film overall. Are there lessons that you’ve taken from filmmakers like Coppola when you tell your own stories?
RD: Yeah, you take from them. I can’t put my finger on concrete things pertaining to that, but you definitely do learn, because Coppola was the kind of director, and I tried to be too, that stood back and waited to see what you brought to the table. He didn’t say, do this, do that, like certain directors, certain old school directors. He was more and more up to date about really letting it come from the actor, and it was great working with him. And I tried to do that as a director as well, you know, let it come from the people.
AVC: You have such an incredible body of work. Are there other films you’re especially proud of that you feel like have not cultivated the reputation they deserve?
RD: Yeah. When I played Joseph Stalin, I got some tremendous feedback on that, but I even got negative feedback on The Apostle, if you can believe that. But I got a terrific letter from Marlon Brando. I showed him that and he really appreciated it. And I heard that Billy Graham appreciated it. So I got it from the religious and I got it from the secular, after that film on religion. But I enjoy directing too, somewhat. I mean, they say it’s very difficult to do, it’s so much work, but I found when it went well, acting and directing, at the end of the day, that was great. I wasn’t tired. So each project presents certain possibilities, certain challenges.
AVC: Having accomplished so much, is there anything that you never got to do or that you still want to do?
RD: Two films recently that will not get made, The Plowman, I was working on with Ed Harris. That’s not gonna get made, I don’t think. And there was one before that in Texas about a young lady and a mountain lion that killed her mother. It was very well written by a man and a woman, and we just couldn’t raise the money. It all comes down to money. And then people say, oh, Bobby Duvall, this and that, you say you can’t raise money? I’ll say it right now. I don’t care what my name is. It’s very, very difficult to raise the proper amount of money.
72 Comments
Robert Duvall is always great, but him as Gus in Lonesome Dove to me is just at a different level. When Diane Lane as Lorie eventually falls in love with him despite the age difference, you get it, yes this guy is it
That is the best thing Duvall has ever done, and I’ll say it, the best thing Tommy Lee Jones has ever done.
For me it’s a close tie with Tender Mercies, but agree re. Tommy Lee Jones.
Fully agree!
He’s said on Howard Stern multiple times that he’s proudest of that performance. And considering how much great stuff he’s been in, that’s saying something.
I was watching Wrestling Ernest Hemingway for about an hour before I realized it was Robert Duvall and not some Cuban actor.
Lonesome Dove is a masterpiece. One of the few made for tv westerns that looks like a real western. (That is, they took care to frame the skies and landscape the way it should be done for an epic.)It started life as a Larry McMurtry script for a John Wayne movie, then that didn’t work out so McMurtry went ahead and turned it into a Pulitzer Prize winning novel. The adaptation, for those who haven’t seen it – well, why haven’t you?? – is really good.[I do wonder if Wayne was going to be Gus or Woodrow. Probably the latter. I really like John Wayne but I don’t think he could have captured Gus’ bluster and charm. Anyway, you guys – watch Lonesome Dove if you haven’t.
I think John Wayne was supposed to be Gus & Henry Fonda was supposed to be Woodrow, in a bit of a similar spin to their roles in Fort Apache. I might be wrong
For all the talk about why Part 3 isn’t any good, Tom Hagan not being in it is what ruins it for me the most. It just doesn’t have the same feel right from the start with him not there. They really never should have went forward without Duvall on board.
But you did get George Fucking Hamilton with his audible tan.
“audible tan” is a fucking brilliant turn of phrase. Bravo.
lol I cant claim that as my own, just can’t remember where I read it, some book of rude quotes or other. I’ve rarely laughed so hard.
Double kudos for your humility in not claiming undo credit!
Billy Crystal lamented Duvall’s absence at the following year’s Oscars when he sang (to the tune of The Godfather theme), “Godfather III / Let there be more / But put Duvall / In Godfather IV!”
I binged the first two a couple of weeks ago…and tried starting III…but by god poor Sophia can’t act. I know it’s not her fault, really – sort’ve a last minute replacement to help out her old man – but…jeez. I can see her trying…and also failing. Hagan’s great, because he’s very much a grounded character who doesn’t get involved as deeply or personally in the shenanigans, and that’s why he’s a powerful presence.
It’s too bad there were no other actresses he could have gotten for the part. It was always Winona Ryder or Sophia. They were, at the time, the only women of that age in Hollywood.
I know, right? You probably could’ve thrown a rock anywhere in LA and hit a woman with better acting chops than Sofia. She really was in over her head.
Rebecca Schaeffer, an actress who starred on the sitcom My Sister Sam had auditioned for the part of Mary, but died prior to filming, having been killed by an obsessive fan.
It’s not Sophia’s fault that she can’t act? Yeah, it is. She could have taken acting lessons, could have worked harder at it, and she also could have chosen to not be in the movie because of her poor acting skills.
Every time she’s on screen with Andy Garcia you can feel the sexual / romantic energy leave the room… I’ll never eat gnocchi again.
We should just be grateful that America seems to have recovered its birthrates after 1989, when there were only two women – Sofia Coppola and Winona Ryder – in the country. Seriously, they could’ve found some 19-year-old Italian-American girl whose only other acting experience was in one commercial for a regional Wisconsin pizza parlour and whose actual job was a lifeguard at the town pool and done better.
She’s so hopelessly out of her depth, it’s really a shame. Sophia’s performance in III and Keanu’s performance in Dracula really drag those movies down because they’re so glaringly miscast. Winona Ryder may not be the greatest actor of her generation (she’s good, IMO) but she has a comfort on camera that Sophia had no way of reaching without more experience. She got ragged on mercilessly at the time and honestly it’s all on Francis for putting her in that position.
I’ve heard some describe it as “it’s ok, Mary’s meant to be awkward! She’s a young girl, thrust into a world she doesn’t understand!” – but Sofia doesn’t even act that well.Years ago, I saw a clip from some godawful daytime soap and there was a scene where some beefcake doc is given bad news. And you can see him go through his directions in his head, right on camera. It’s like the thespian equivalent of moving your lips while you’re reading.“Stare..1…2…3…run hand through hair…1…2…3…turn…1…2…say ‘Oh. God. No!’”You could see the noggin cogs turnin’. That’s kinda what Sofia does. She doesn’t come across as an awkward teenager, she comes across as an awkward actor.
Him getting pushed aside because he’s not a wartime guy is a brutal reminder of his place in the family, especially since it’s bullshit.
No, not really, bfred. The more I think about it the more I’m sure it was Vito’s idea — he never lost sight of trying to make the Corleone Family legitimate, and once Sonny died Tom was the public face that needed.
Had Sonny lived, Michael could have (and probably would have) been that public face — Marine Captain, War Hero. Vito didn’t like it at the time, but a part of him must have seen how advantageous that would be to the future Senator Corleone…Governor Corleone…President Corleone — Hey, if that bootlegger Joe Kennedy could could do it for his kid, why not Vito?
There’s a lot more reasons why Part 3 suuuuuucked aside from Robert Duval not being in it. Cough…cough Andy Garcia..cough.
Garcia blows my whole cock in III
You think so? His character was supposed to have a combination of Vito’s family loyalty, Sonny’s temper, and Michael’s ruthlessness. I thought Garcia brought out those qualities well. The only part that didn’t work was the love story with Mary, but that was due to Sofia Coppola.
Absolutely. I recently rewatched the trilogy and I never realized before how Tom’s presence in the transition from Vito to Michael is essential to understanding the dynamics of the family. The way Tom handles Sonny to how Tom is more in the family than Fredo is and how that probably affected Fredo. It’s just so subtle because Tom is such a subtle character. The third movie would have been much better in seeing how Tom helped Michael become legitimate and how he would advise Michael about Vincent.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with George Hamilton, but he clearly wasn’t supposed to be there.
Also, instead of Sofia Cooppola it should’ve someone else. Probably not Winona Ryder. I’d say Marisa Tomei, but she was a little too old at the time.Also, if they’d just managed to fix Pacino’s old-age makeup at the end. WTF was that all about?
I think with certain script changes Tomei would have knocked it out of the park and the movie would have been better for it. I also think Coppola knew he was screwed when Duvall said no but the money was just too great to kill the project. I suspect Paramount would have made the movie anyway So Coppola figured he would make the best movie he could knowing it might be less than instead of an outsider coming in and possibly making things worse.
my understanding is that it WAS originally supposed to be Winona Ryder but she backed out due to exhaustion from film she had been working on
You are correct, which is why I said “probably not Winona Ryder” (because I think she’s wrong for the part).
From what I understand (someone correct me if I’m wrong), it also wasn’t just “oh, we’ll do a slight rewrite and slot George Hamilton in that role/function” (like what they did with Clemenza being only slightly rewritten to be Pentangeli in Part II) – it massively changed the concept of what GFIII would have been and that Hagen was supposed to be the head of his own “family” in conflict with what was left of Michael’s.
These “after-and-before” images only make sense if the video they restored was an old AVI file at 360p resolution or something.
The Godfather never looked as bad as those “before” shots. Not even on VHS.
It’s the raw scans of the negatives Paramount’s actually using for the “after” side of the pictures, not any actual final print or home media release – though the why the fuck Paramount didn’t mention that in the press releases, I don’t know. They’re done for maximum shadow and highlight detail, before they’re finally graded in post. (I would say that the film industry writers ought to have known this but…yeah.)
I guess that’s cool, although I assume the general public have never seen the negatives before, so showing before-and-after to us doesn’t really mean much. Any “before” we’ve actually watched looked pretty decent.
Yeah, it’s kinda like writing an article about how Ford’s releasing a new finish for the 2022 Mustang, except instead showing 2021 and 2022 car, they show the later car and a bucket of paint.
I would like to see the 4k v the blu.
Here ya go. And, man, can’t say I’m impressed. The resolution in crease and noise decrease is nice, but…the colour grading and exposure is just…woof. It’s darker, most white highlightss are grey, and there’s an unpleasant cold blue tone to it, erasing the warmth of the film and sunshine that was in the BD. It feels like they went a little too nuts with the colour grading, wanting to make it look like it was shot on digital.
I think this might be a little more true to how it was originally shot though. The problem is, it was shot so damn dark, which doesn’t work so well when you’re watching it at home. On VHS it was borderline unwatchable. They pushed the brightness on the DVD and then pushed it further on the Blu-ray, but the Blu-Ray has that orange tint, which is a little extreme. The 4K looks cold by comparison when viewed side by side like that but on its own I think it may look just fine. It is considerably darker though; I think I’ll need to watch this at night with the lights down for sure. I take the time to turn the lights down and close the curtains for these anyway. A lot of movies I don’t bother switching over to my receiver and all that but these will get the full home theater treatment every time.
I’ve also just realised something else after I posted it: that 4K stuff in the video might be because of HDR bullshit. HDR files played/mixed down to SDR tends to look like that, with zero highlights. Maybe it’s just a bad rip for that video. Sorry ‘bout that.Brando’s windowpane shirt was the worst offender for darkness, but: it looked straight grey in that video.(The tollbooth still in that video looks like some bullshit from B-grade movie where they did that thing by putting a blue filter on the camera during the day to make it look like it was shot at night…at the very least it looks like the shooting moved forward to just after sunset…)I found another HD/4K comparison (UK HD/US 4K) here:But still, I recognise the warmth-bias of Kodak filmstock – and I agree it gets turned up a bit in the 1080p – but I think for the sunny scenes in the 4K version they went too far, and removed any sense of sunshine or warmth from the picture. Scenes in shadows, however, look fantastic. That shot of Kay at the wedding is just gorgeous – perfectly balanced, skin no longer looking like she stole it off a televangelist. Looking through that second vid, one thing I’ve noticed that scenes in the afternoon sun- when the shadows are long – seem to be colour balanced to midday lighting, not warm sunset lighting. Sonny lying in the gutter is a notable offender, as is when Kay and that other guy is walking down the suburban street.
I went back and looked at those and I do see what you mean there, especially the tollbooth scene looking like day for night shooting (a personal pet peeve of mine because it’s almost always so distracting). It seems like there could have been a better compromise where they could have darkened it a bit and lost some of that extra warmth in some shots without making it as cool as they did.
The first time I saw it was broadcast TV and it was damn near indecipherable (especially when you threw in Brando’s mumble). I took me years to understand what the adulation was about.
Did you have a concussion?
That is kind of the downside to remastering for 4K, because you know they’re looking at it on a studio reference OLED monitor in a darkened editing suite, not off-axis on a miscalibrated UHD LED in someone’s living or family room with the lights on.
To them, all that darkness reveals a wealth of detail, while to us it’s Black Cat in a Coal Bin at Midnight time! Maybe if the movie came with Coppola coming over and properly calibrating your set it’d look better, but honestly — how many people do you know who even reset their televisions to Movie Mode from that Big, Bright Display Mode, let alone bothered with the most basic calibration tools like a UHD “Calibrate Your 4K TeeVee!” Blu-Ray disc (assuming they can find one and have a UHD Blu player)?
Yeah the before pic is sci fi
Successful man. What must it be like to have a job that fits you so well, and that you’re so good at, you’re still happily doing it in your 90s? I mean, I really like my job and believe in it, but it kicks my ass and if retirement is still a thing when I’m retirement age, I’m the fuck out of there.
Yeah, I can see him still getting along well with Coppola even after III. IIRC, it was the studio’s decision to pay Pacino far far more than Duvall was being offered, and Duvall was at the point of his career where his name was big enough to know when he was being lowballed.
I don’t hate Part III. I actually like bits and pieces of it. I don’t even resent the fact that Tom’s role in the family business is suddenly being done by George Hamilton, bless him. I mean, if you can’t get an iconic actor to reprise an iconic part, why not go 180 degrees the other direction? But when they couldn’t get Robert Duvall on board, they should have rethought doing Part III in the first place. Even when the movie is working, something about it just seems somewhat “off,” and his character’s absence is a big part of it.
III would be a decent standalone movie. It just pales beside 2 of the greatest movies ever. Having Duvall would have helped a little though.
Not doing Godfather III was basically not an option for Coppola. He was flat broke at the time and needed the money.
I think there was a release date set for GFIII which is why Duvall dropping out, Ryder not doing the movie, forced so much of a rewrite. I don’t think it’s a terrible movie, but the care and craft that went into making the other 2 movies just doesn’t seem to present here. The supporting cast is not near as good and the the effort isn’t really put into the time period like the previous movies.
AVC: You mentioned the reputation that Brando brought to the set was so exciting and intimidating—RD: No, not intimidating. It always felt equal.AVC: Well, he obviously had a well-documented approach that was unique. He was such a great actor, and yet he also used cue cards sometimes for his dialogue. Were there any adjustments you had to make or anything that tested your approach while you were working with him on scenes? RD: No, not really because I tried that once. I didn’t go that route. I felt that if you know your lines perfectly, you can still be very spontaneous. He did that because he claimed it made him spontaneous, but I think it was partially that and partially laziness.
Coppola made three of my favorite films the first two “Godfathers”, and then “Apocalypse Now” being my favorite. Duvall is essential to all of them.“I love the smell of napalm in the morning” sticks with me. However I was recently at a baptism where they were doing the rights for the child, and as it was going on I just kept imaging the end of “The Godfather”.
There’s a really, REALLY silly Godfather bit on a Modern Family episode that I now can’t get out of my head during the actual Godfather baptism scene. Which doesn’t seem moral.
What a road not taken. If you pay Duvall a bit more – he wasn’t asking to be equal with Pacino, just not so unequal – then you have a better movie AND you probably get to make Godfather IV.Legend has it that it would have focused on the Andy Garcia character and it would have ended with him dying in a shootout with the DEA. It would have been interspersed with the rise of Vito and Genco and a young Sonny kicking ass.
I want to see that movie!!!
Just came down here to scream at the top of my lungs: IF YOU LOVE DUVALL YOU MUST WATCH TENDER MERCIES. Goddam what a beautiful film and such a beautiful, understated performance by Duvall.
Tender Mercies was on TCM recently – I had forgotten how good it is. He has a line to Tess Harper early on, something like “..I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind marrying me too much” that made ME want to marry him, and I’m a straight male.And his singing… I assume he’s a country music fan, but that doesn’t always translate to authenticity for a role. Well, it does here.
A number of years ago, he bought a horse farm near me in The Plains, VA, which is outside DC and Virgina’s hunt country. He also is partners with a chef for a restaurant in the town called The Railstop Cafe where will stop in from time to time. That area has a lot of money. The Rockefellers and Mellons have big spreads out there.
I wonder if there was some Khartoum guilt behind the purchase of the farm.
Having heard interviews in recent years, I doubt that he has much guilt about anything.
The Apostle is a great movie, and the best one about faith that I’ve ever seen. I’m not religious at all, but that scene where he faces down, and prays with/for, the guy with the gun… (it’s Billy Bob Thornton) is just incredible. The scene doesn’t play out in an expected way at all. Both men seem not to be acting or to be aware that there’s even a camera.Oh, also – Robert Duvall is never bad in any movie. I think that’s been scientifically proven.
There’s two major things wrong with Part III…
– Duvall not returning.
– Michael seeking redemption. Uh uh. Wrong. Incorrect. Michael has seen everything he’s done as a necessary evil. He wouldn’t apologize for anything, even killing Fredo (as unnecessary as it was).
well, think it was more he was seeking absolution rather than redemption. It WAS a necessary evil and he did it and he needed to do it and he feels GUILTY for it. don’t think he’s seeking redemption, think he’s trying to alleviate his guilt re: it. ( also as a reputation started when you’re the guy who will kill your own brother if he steps outa line, gotta realize that’s going to stand out [as well as be whispered about —his own daughter asking other more informed people about it if it was true…..])that said, sofia, sofia, and sofia in the gnocchi scene are the 3things wrong w godfather III
AVC: The 1970s was just one masterpiece after another, but was there any sense while filming The Godfather that it would have this longevity and legacy?RD: Well, I’ve only felt that twiceFollow up question suggestion: What was the other film? Unless of course, that question was asked and answered and was edited out of the article by the editor.
This is unrelated to anything, but that header picture makes me realize that a young Robert Duvall would have been a perfect actor to play Putin in a movie.
I met him in Milwaukee in 2001 and he is cool af
My understanding was francis was not interested in part 3 himself. the whole third movie was just to try to catch lightning in a bottle yet again. the 2nd is the hardest to beat the first . the third had no chance really. I agree sophia coppolla was wrong but hey daddy is a famous guy. andy garcia I thought did a good job hes a great actor. he brought sonnys temper back and was understandable . I didnt liek he was fooling with the daughter. in reality that was nothing more than a death sentence. to bang the daughter of the god fasther .. that was lost on me.
I love hamilton in everything he has done. and again I think the way he was portrayed was the issue. again justr my opinion here. # wrapped it all up in a pretty bow and tried to wash away any sins.the fact that they knew people were coming to kill mike corleone at the theatre, why not pack the place with so much security no one could get past .
lastly, they made connie into some evil monster which she never was. she was just a simple lady that had bad luck with men .also the scene were they kill all the mob bosses but mike in that hotel was pretty far fetched for me. it is still better than most movies ever made . but could have done so much better. as Mr. duval points out its all about how much cash can you raise for a movie. I think the cash flow was very slow for this release. but who knows .I was not there )
A really underrated performance from him is the first Jack Reacher movie. There aren’t many actors who could come into the movie that late and be instantly believable as Reacher’s equal, and Duvall is one of them.