Godfather II

[toomanyhatz]

It is, as our pal Davey the Fat Boy once said, the sequel that does the best job of expanding on the original. Similarly to Godfather I, I knew most of the scenes in this movie but had never watched the thing in one sitting. For one thing, at over three hours, it doesn't seem too long. The parallel stories are fascinating, and I think shows the difference between the eras- the sense of community and optimism that accompanied Vito's rise to power, and the pressures and loss that characterized Micheal's. Again, great acting. It's a landmark role for Pacino, as he wrings all the emotions out of the very complex character. Pain, sadness, determination, pride, anger- all register in his face, often simultaneously. The flashback scene is an absolute heartbreaker. The "is this what I saw for myself?" implications are devastating, especially after he literally does lose his family.

I don't know, I might be changing my mind about it being as good as the first. They're worthy companions for sure.

Should I bother with III?

[BARON CORNY DOG]

Should I bother with III?

Yeah!
If you have anything invested in the first two, don't you have to?
Obviously, it doesn't deliver the same thing that the first two did, but it's also not an unmitigated failure, as it is often characterized.

[Matt Wilson]

Should I bother with III?

Yeah!
If you have anything invested in the first two, don't you have to?
Obviously, it doesn't deliver the same thing that the first two did, but it's also not an unmitigated failure, as it is often characterized.

Baron speaks the truth.

If the first two are classics then the third one is still good.
It just suffers in comparison, like most movies would.


And don't even think of using my first sentence as a signature, Michael.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Should I bother with III?

Yeah!
If you have anything invested in the first two, don't you have to?
Obviously, it doesn't deliver the same thing that the first two did, but it's also not an unmitigated failure, as it is often characterized.

I agree.

If Part III is a failure, it is a brilliant failure. That it fails to hold up to its prescessors is a given, but there is an awfully big gap between, "not as good as the first first two Godfather films" and "awful".

Getting beyond the "Sofia Coppola" issue (poor Sofia, while not a great actress, doesn't deserve the bad rap she gets for supposedly sinking the film), the thing that most undercuts it from being great is Coppola's pretention towards elevating his saga to a kind of Shakesperean opera. Where the first two films were epic in scope, they were decidely still intimate works of cinema. Part III has some great cinematic moments, but Coppola can't seem to resist the urge to reach for grandness in some of the film's key moments. In this effort he was clearly egged on by Pacino. Both seem to envision Michael as a modern King Lear and aren't shy about making sure you know it.

All of this said, I don't want to give you the wrong impression. The film is not without subtlety, and seldom crosses the line into ham-handedness. Rather it simply misses the almost perfect naturalistic tone that elevates the first two films by a few degrees.

The important thing to realize is that all of the above is about tone and presentation. On that level the film was a bit of a letdown. But the most important part of the first two films was the themes it explored. On that level there is a lot to like about Part III. While the first two films were largely about the fall of community and the rise of corporatism, Part III takes this journey to it's logical conclusion and uses the Corleones to comment on the birth of the multinational powerbrokers. When the film is focused on this subject matter, it is no less brilliant than the first two.

Of course there are a few moments of clumsy plotting, but they are minor and not terribly problematic. Perhaps a little too much focus is placed on Michael's attempts at personal redemption for some tastes - but if any character in the history of film justifies the introspection, it's this one. And if any actor in film is capable of making it powerful, it's Pacino.

So - give it a shot. I think you'll agree that the tone is a bit off the mark, but I'd be surprised if you didn't find it to be worth your time.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

Baron speaks the truth.

. . .


And don't even think of using my first sentence as a signature, Michael.

You're practically gagging for it, Wilson.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Petty, I know, but the Lake Tahoe fishing scene is shot at sundown and no one goes fishing then.

Well it was Fredo doing the fishing. Not the sharpest knife in the drawrer.

As for the other shortcuts...what? Not using real bullets?

[toomanyhatz]

Another thing about this movie, a couple of people here have accused both Godfather movies of glorifying the characters, but the sense of loss is so strong at the end that I think it can be very easily seen as a cautionary tale. It might glorify Vito a bit- it kind of does kind of say that community-based murder of villains is superior to organized, institutional killing- but I think by the end of II any sympathy the watcher has for Micheal is gone- like Kay's love for him.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

It might glorify Vito a bit- it kind of does kind of say that community-based murder of villains is superior to organized, institutional killing

Hmmm....

I don't think it intends to say that at all. I think it intends to be morally neutral. In The Godfather, all morality is relative. As Roger Ebert observed:

The Godfather'' is told entirely within a closed world. That's why we sympathize with characters who are essentially evil. The story by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola is a brilliant conjuring act, inviting us to consider the Mafia entirely on its own terms.

I contend that we aren't meant to romanticize the characters in the film, nor judge them. We are meant to identify with them. The film is after all, about us. If Vito seems romanticized, he is romanticized the way we romanticize the history of our country - mostly in hindsight and with flawed perception. Just as we tak about the good old days as if they did not also include slavery, Jim Crow and McCarthyism, Don Corleone's sins are glossed over. But note that when the heads of the major crime families meet to discuss the possibility of entering the drug trade - the "old school" leaders as it were - one of them argues:

I don't want it near schools -- I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the dark people -- the colored. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls...

I don't think that this is an accident. I think it is a reminder that our glorious past was never all that glorious.