The Godfather Part II ~ Francis Ford Coppola (1974)
I watched The Godfather in theaters in 1972 and loved it. The grand scope, the great storytelling, and the period authenticity offered a fascinating glimpse into a world I knew very little about. Francis Ford Coppola was in the vanguard of the resurgence of modern film in America in the 1970s along with Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas, offering a string of inspired films: The Godfather, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, The Outsiders, Rumble Fish, and several only slightly lesser works. In partnership with George Lucas he founded Zoetrope Studios, producing Lucas’s first two films. Yet somehow I had never seen The Godfather Part II, so I watched it with great anticipation.
Godfather 2 was the first film to include Part Two in its title, and had the unique structure of being both a prequel and sequel to the original film. It showed the backstory of Vito Corleone as he watched his father killed by a Mafioso Don in Sicily, was smuggled out to America, and gradually grew into a hugely powerful Mafia figure. The other plotline continues the story of The Godfather, as Corleone’s son Michael takes the family business to Las Vegas, Florida, and (almost) Cuba. Michael wearily deals with competition and power struggles along with a changing world and Senate investigations into the late 1950s.
Given all this, my immediate reaction to G2 was a letdown. The backstory of Vito was interesting, but limited. It was told with huge gaps and seemed very disjointed, as if Coppola had designed a richer story but had to cut the heart out of it. This may be possible, as the double stories of the film led to an almost 3 1/2 hour film which was shown with an Intermission. I was not especially impressed by Robert De Niro as young Vito, although mine is a minority view as he received the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work. And in the 1950s, son Michael (Al Pacino) is playing games within games, telling everyone what they want or need to hear, then destroying them. I felt this was overly long, with too many scenes of Michael quietly pondering what to do. The setup of the 1950s story was almost perfunctory, with names and connections tossed around at a confusing pace. Some films are meant to be vague and nebulous as details are gradually made clear. This was not the case here, as important details were necessary to understand the basics of the story.
I also had difficulties with the structure itself. Combining two stories in this manner requires skill and subtlety, but Coppola stays with each story for a rather long time. I would finally settle in to the given story then be suddenly thrown back into the other timeline. I felt Coppola should have intercut more frequently, or at least picked his transition moments better.
It was immediately obvious that Coppola had (I assume due to the success of The Godfather) a freer hand and a much larger budget for G2. The period detail, the cinematography, and the cast are all excellent. But I also felt that the beautiful settings and large scenes with hundreds of extras were too strong a focus this time. I found it to be a film of style over substance, and felt the freer hand could have used more restraint.
The film got very mixed critical response upon release, but did gradually get more respect and is now considered a great movie. It won Best Picture, Robert De Niro as young Vito won Best Supporting Actor, Coppola won, jointly with Mario Puzo, for the script, as did the Art Direction and the musical score (by the fabulous Nino Rota and Carmine Coppola, Francis’s father). Al Pacino as Michael, Michael Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli, Lee Strasberg as Hyman Roth, Talia Shire as Connie Corleone, and the costume designer were also nominees.
I had not read reviews of the film and knew little about it. I purposely did not read Ebert’s Great Movies review or his 1974 review before watching. In my reading after seeing the film I was surprised to find that Ebert reacted to the film much as I had. He gave the movie three stars out of four, and was widely criticized for not seeing the greatness of the film like many others did. He also had difficulties with the structure, saying that it was a "weakness from which the film never recovers." He suggested the story would have been more effective as two movies.
Writing years later for his Great Movies project Ebert stood by everything he wrote in his 1974 review. He felt like everyone was swept up and entertained by seeing the next and previous parts of the Corleone story to the point that they overlooked the glaring drawbacks. Ebert felt the reverence for G2 was largely based simply on its connection to the excellent first movie. He admits that as a standalone film it would not have merited inclusion, and that only as part of the sweeping saga of both films did he feel compelled to change his rating to four stars and add it to his second volume of Great Movies. The Sight and Sound lists included the two films as one selection in the 1982, 1992, and 2002 polls. In 2002 they were #4 and #5 in the Critics Poll and jointly #2 in the Directors Poll, but when changed to two separate movies in 2012 the first movie fell to #21 in the Critics Poll with this one dropping to #31. There is more disparity in the 2012 Directors Poll, with G1 at #7 and G2 tied with 6 other films at #30. Ebert felt that even this level of respect was largely due to G2’s association with the first film, and I’m inclined to agree. The other films G2 is ranked alongside in the Directors Poll include City Lights, L’Avventura, and Amarcord. I just don’t think it’s in league with those films. It even places above La Dolce Vita, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Playtime, Psycho, Pather Panchali, etc. - I disagree.
So far in this project I’ve seen several films that did not connect with me, but I always felt that they were important films that all cinema fans should definitely see. I’m going to say that for this one as well, but reluctantly. It’s the first movie in my list that I almost feel is just not necessary for everyone to see. In the end, I’ll agree with Roger Ebert. it should be seen for its connection to one of the best American films of all time and because many people do love it, but it’s not a film I plan to even give a second viewing. My rating: C
Godfather 2 was the first film to include Part Two in its title, and had the unique structure of being both a prequel and sequel to the original film. It showed the backstory of Vito Corleone as he watched his father killed by a Mafioso Don in Sicily, was smuggled out to America, and gradually grew into a hugely powerful Mafia figure. The other plotline continues the story of The Godfather, as Corleone’s son Michael takes the family business to Las Vegas, Florida, and (almost) Cuba. Michael wearily deals with competition and power struggles along with a changing world and Senate investigations into the late 1950s.
Given all this, my immediate reaction to G2 was a letdown. The backstory of Vito was interesting, but limited. It was told with huge gaps and seemed very disjointed, as if Coppola had designed a richer story but had to cut the heart out of it. This may be possible, as the double stories of the film led to an almost 3 1/2 hour film which was shown with an Intermission. I was not especially impressed by Robert De Niro as young Vito, although mine is a minority view as he received the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his work. And in the 1950s, son Michael (Al Pacino) is playing games within games, telling everyone what they want or need to hear, then destroying them. I felt this was overly long, with too many scenes of Michael quietly pondering what to do. The setup of the 1950s story was almost perfunctory, with names and connections tossed around at a confusing pace. Some films are meant to be vague and nebulous as details are gradually made clear. This was not the case here, as important details were necessary to understand the basics of the story.
I also had difficulties with the structure itself. Combining two stories in this manner requires skill and subtlety, but Coppola stays with each story for a rather long time. I would finally settle in to the given story then be suddenly thrown back into the other timeline. I felt Coppola should have intercut more frequently, or at least picked his transition moments better.
It was immediately obvious that Coppola had (I assume due to the success of The Godfather) a freer hand and a much larger budget for G2. The period detail, the cinematography, and the cast are all excellent. But I also felt that the beautiful settings and large scenes with hundreds of extras were too strong a focus this time. I found it to be a film of style over substance, and felt the freer hand could have used more restraint.
The film got very mixed critical response upon release, but did gradually get more respect and is now considered a great movie. It won Best Picture, Robert De Niro as young Vito won Best Supporting Actor, Coppola won, jointly with Mario Puzo, for the script, as did the Art Direction and the musical score (by the fabulous Nino Rota and Carmine Coppola, Francis’s father). Al Pacino as Michael, Michael Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli, Lee Strasberg as Hyman Roth, Talia Shire as Connie Corleone, and the costume designer were also nominees.
I had not read reviews of the film and knew little about it. I purposely did not read Ebert’s Great Movies review or his 1974 review before watching. In my reading after seeing the film I was surprised to find that Ebert reacted to the film much as I had. He gave the movie three stars out of four, and was widely criticized for not seeing the greatness of the film like many others did. He also had difficulties with the structure, saying that it was a "weakness from which the film never recovers." He suggested the story would have been more effective as two movies.
Writing years later for his Great Movies project Ebert stood by everything he wrote in his 1974 review. He felt like everyone was swept up and entertained by seeing the next and previous parts of the Corleone story to the point that they overlooked the glaring drawbacks. Ebert felt the reverence for G2 was largely based simply on its connection to the excellent first movie. He admits that as a standalone film it would not have merited inclusion, and that only as part of the sweeping saga of both films did he feel compelled to change his rating to four stars and add it to his second volume of Great Movies. The Sight and Sound lists included the two films as one selection in the 1982, 1992, and 2002 polls. In 2002 they were #4 and #5 in the Critics Poll and jointly #2 in the Directors Poll, but when changed to two separate movies in 2012 the first movie fell to #21 in the Critics Poll with this one dropping to #31. There is more disparity in the 2012 Directors Poll, with G1 at #7 and G2 tied with 6 other films at #30. Ebert felt that even this level of respect was largely due to G2’s association with the first film, and I’m inclined to agree. The other films G2 is ranked alongside in the Directors Poll include City Lights, L’Avventura, and Amarcord. I just don’t think it’s in league with those films. It even places above La Dolce Vita, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Playtime, Psycho, Pather Panchali, etc. - I disagree.
So far in this project I’ve seen several films that did not connect with me, but I always felt that they were important films that all cinema fans should definitely see. I’m going to say that for this one as well, but reluctantly. It’s the first movie in my list that I almost feel is just not necessary for everyone to see. In the end, I’ll agree with Roger Ebert. it should be seen for its connection to one of the best American films of all time and because many people do love it, but it’s not a film I plan to even give a second viewing. My rating: C