Retro Film Review: The Godfather Part II (1974)

The real importance of any film cannot be adequately appraised solely by its box-office success or critical response, or even a combination of both. Films, no matter how popular or critically acclaimed, cease to be important when the passage of time erases them from collective memory. Only those films that defy such oblivion are truly grand, and a prime example is the first two films of The Godfather Saga. Their grandeur can be seen not only in their quality and the influence they have had over generations, but also by the endless debate that continues among critics and film scholars to this day. The debate arose from the fact that the second film of the Saga, The Godfather Part II, represents one of the first examples of a now generally despised practice in modern Hollywood—making sequels to successful, great films. Such practice earned the utter disdain of contemporary critics because sequels almost always fail to meet the high standards of their predecessors and, more often than not, succeed only in tarnishing their memory. However, in the 1970s, during the golden age of so-called 'New Hollywood', such a rule was not universal, and some films turned out to be even better than the first in the series. The Godfather Part II by Francis Ford Coppola is often cited as one of them.

The reason for the high status of The Godfather Part II lies in the fact that the sequel to The Godfather, a very personal film, was authored by the very same creator with the same personal agenda. While other sequels usually serve as nothing more than an easy way for unimaginative producers to cash in on previous successes, The Godfather Part II was a valuable opportunity for Coppola to experiment, correct possible flaws, or even respond to critics of his previous work. Fortunately, in an atmosphere that encouraged creative freedom, Coppola also used the immense resources of the major Hollywood studios, whose executives gave him complete control over his work. The biggest and most serious objection to The Godfather was Coppola's allegedly apologetic portrayal of the Mafia—a portrayal that would encourage similar, more or less apologetic film stereotypes in the decades to come. Coppola was accused of showing organised crime as more noble and less violent than it actually was—his Mafiosi are depicted as dedicated family men, opposed to narcotics and any unnecessary violence, and in some ways even a better alternative to the legitimate government. In this second part of the saga, Coppola intended to use the story of the first part to paint a more realistic and, consequently, much darker picture.

The plot of the film is rather complex, thanks to Coppola's revolutionary yet ingenious idea to interweave two stories. The first begins roughly a decade after the events of the first Godfather, with Michael Corleone (played by Al Pacino) now firmly in control of the Corleone crime family, left to him by his late and charismatic father Vito in the previous film. The second story deals with the young Vito Corleone (played by Robert De Niro), first as a boy forced to flee to America from Sicilian Mafiosi who had killed his entire family, then as a young immigrant who must turn to crime in order to feed his wife and children. These two stories are connected by skilful editing and Coppola's directorial techniques (an example at the beginning is the scene where the 9-year-old Vito Corleone morphs into another scene with Vito's 9-year-old grandson), although at times the transition is not so smooth or symbolic.

The story of the young Vito Corleone seems more pleasing for the viewer and is definitely more fascinating. Coppola obviously enjoyed recreating the harsh life of his Italian American ancestors, and he even indulged in a brief humorous episode that would remain the sole uplifting piece in this otherwise extremely grim and pessimistic film. Robert De Niro was perfectly cast as the young Vito, and his legendary method acting techniques—such as living in Sicily to perfect the use of the local dialect and accent—are here in full swing. Vito Corleone in his early years is as charming as he was charismatic in his Godfather incarnation. The sympathetic portrayal in the previous film was no accident—Corleone is shown as a basically honest human being who is simply driven to the other side of the law by harsh circumstances. Ironically, Corleone was actually a victim of the Mafia in his youth—first, by losing his family, then by losing his job (his employer being forced to find work for a mafioso's relative)—but he nevertheless became first a member, then the leader of that very same organisation.

His son Michael in the latter story is a shadow, not only of his father, but of his own self as presented in The Godfather—a generally decent man who transformed from an idealistic youth into a pragmatic adult. Michael's plan to carry on with his father's ambitious legacy brings disastrous results—he loses his family, the most important thing and the very reason he decided to follow his father's criminal footsteps in the first place. Lacking his father's charisma, Michael leads the family with an iron fist, thus alienating his closest relatives: his sister Connie (played by Talia Shire) abandoned her own children and turned to debauchery; his wife Kay (played by Diane Keaton), disgusted by the loss of her freedom and ideals, plotted vengeance of Medean proportions; his weak and neglected brother Fredo (played by John Cazale) sought to prove his own identity through betrayal. Even the most loyal member of the family—adopted brother and family consigliere Tom Hagen (played by Robert Duvall)—can feel Michael's loss of affection and desperately tries to regain it by speaking Italian, without any significant result. This segment is probably the darkest, least sentimental and most brutal part of The Godfather saga; Coppola obviously did not like the subject of his presentation, and even the photography by Gordon Willis illustrates that—while the exteriors are sharply lit, the interiors of Michael's luxurious buildings are mostly dark, symbolising the corruption and decay of his criminal empire.

Unfortunately, that segment was probably the weakest—weaker than the prologue and The Godfather. The main reason lies in the screenplay by Coppola and Mario Puzo, and a plot that lacks coherence. This segment introduces two new major characters—Michael's underboss Frank Pentangeli (played by Michael V. Gazzo) and Jewish mobster Hyman Roth (played by Lee Strasberg). These two men have some serious inconsistencies in their characterisations. Pentangeli is at first a simple street thug, only to be revealed later as a well-read, cultivated man in the film's finale. Roth is also inconsistent—his character, based on the real-life underworld legend Meyer Lansky, is someone too clever and experienced to allow himself to engage in something as doomed as investing in Cuba on the brink of revolution. These flaws are somewhat compensated for by the great actors in these roles. The same cannot be said for other plot problems—the lack of a clear explanation for the conflict between Michael and Roth, and the many subplots dealing with real-life events and anecdotes concerning the Mafia (the Valachi testimony in the Senate and the JFK assassination). Finally, a lack of originality is revealed at the end, when Coppola almost recreates his multiple massacre scene from the end of The Godfather.

Despite its repetitiveness and lack of originality, The Godfather Part II remains a truly grand film. The production design by Dean Tavoularis is superb (especially in the first segment); the same can be said for the costumes by Theadora van Runkle (the expensive white suit serves as a wonderful character trait for Don Fanucci), but most of all the music by Nino Rota and Carmine Coppola is almost perfect. The lead actors are wonderful—Pacino, De Niro, Keaton, Shire, Cazale, Duvall, Gazzo, Strasberg, as well as those in supporting roles (Bruno Kirby as young Clemenza, Gastone Moschin as Don Fanucci, G.D. Spradlin as Senator Geary).

At the end of the day, perhaps even such a great, 'Oscar'-worthy film can suffer from the dreaded 'sequel syndrome'. However, those flaws did not prevent it from becoming a true classic, one of the pillars of modern cinema, with a quality seldom matched. After almost a quarter of a century, new viewers should be able to enjoy it—both those who have not seen The Godfather and those who have.

RATING: 8/10 (+++)

(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on December 11th 1998)

==

Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc

Brave browser: https://brave.com/dra011

BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7