Godfather, Part II, The (1974)
“Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”
|
Synopsis: |
|
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review:
He argues that “De Niro gets by on presence alone (his charming smile, his quizzical look, his physical grace), but Pacino is a brooding bore” — a character who “does not develop logically from the person he played in the original,” but rather “is a caricature of a crime boss” (again, I disagree). He adds, “All [the] major scenes seem unreal, calculated for audience response,” and “phoniest of all is his breakup scene with wife Diane Keaton, who looks over-rehearsed, like a scene for an acting class.”
Peary continues his take-down by noting that “several of the major scenes in the contemporary section come across as mere duplications of real-life drama we’ve seen on television,” noting specifically that “the scene in which the senator (G.D. Spradin) is found in a brothel with a hooker he brutally killed is similar to numerous sequences in exploitation films of the era and is included for no reason other than sensationalism.”
He asserts that “the only moments that come across as real are when the crime bosses and legitimate businessmen gather in Batista Cuba to decide how to divide up the American pie”:
… and “when a Jewish crime boss (a terrific, subdued debut performance by legendary acting teacher Lee Strasberg) raises rather than lowers the volume on a televised football game while talking over important crime business with Michael.”
In Alternate Oscars — where he names Chinatown (1974) the Best Picture of the Year instead — Peary concedes that The Godfather, Part II “went a step farther” than the original film “by exploring the link between organized crime and politicians — which was certainly a topical theme in light of the Watergate scandal.”
I — along with most other film lovers and critics — disagree with Peary’s take on this justifiably lauded sequel. It’s equally, if differently, compelling throughout, taking the sprawling storyline in fascinating directions (both backwards and forwards) and continuing to grow our understanding of precisely how a mob family like the Corleones may have evolved. I don’t have any complaints, and find both De Niro and Pacino suitable in their roles; to that end, for another take on the depth of Pacino’s characterization as Michael, check out the video “How Michael Corleone Looks at People”. Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:
Must See? Categories
(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) Links: |
One thought on “Godfather, Part II, The (1974)”
A no-brainer must-see.
(As posted in ‘Film Junkie’ (fb) 8/20/22:)
“Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”
‘The Godfather Part II’ (The Coppola Restoration blu-ray):
Random thoughts:
Although after first seeing ‘The Godfather’ in a theater, I saw it again several times when it was available for home viewing, this was only my second viewing of Part II. I think I prefer it over Part I – and Part I is terrific, so that’s saying something. While watching, the thought came to me, ‘This Coppola guy sure has come a long, long way from ‘Dementia 13′.’
The 3 1/2 hours fly by. I was even a little ‘miffed’ when an ‘Intermission’ sign appeared. I wanted to keep going.
Women have more of a presence here. Some of them are still being “careless”: the party girl wife (Marianna Hill) of Fredo (John Cazale), Connie (Talia Shire) turning into a kind of latter-day Zelda Fitzgerald, on the arm of someone (Troy Donahue?!) looking for a meal ticket (~until Connie turns maternal later on.) Diane Keaton ultimately gets her own mad scene, to mirror Shire in Part I. Even Mama Corleone (Morgana King – take note, Juan Carlos) has a more significant presence.
Simply put, the movie itself is a banquet. Coppola had made Part I under immense pressure from behind-the-scenes but (working best under pressure) he served up a commercial blockbuster that was also embraced critically. (The blu-ray contains an extra – ‘The Masterpiece That Almost Wasn’t’ – which lays out what Coppola was up against during the Part I shoot.) Since its impact was huge, Coppola was given hands-off control for Part II. Though it eventually won 6 Oscars over 3 for Part I, it more or less made half of what Part I made at the box office and critics overall were less enthused.
But, later. Part II grew in appreciation – and time has been more than kind to it. Less traditionally structured than Part I, Part II reveals itself as being much more ambitious (in its own way, sort of outdoing its predecessor in the way that James Cameron’s ‘Aliens’ outdoes Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’).
The blending of history (the rise of young Vito Corleone – Robert De Niro) with the ascension of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is achieved in a way that is mind-boggling in its brilliance – when it could have easily been clunky instead. It’s clear that each overlap was thought out meticulously, point by point.
A sequence like the one in which the House Committee is investigating the Corleone Family could have been extraneous and talky but instead it’s riveting (although I found myself wishing I was a little better versed in Cuba’s history for the section that involves that country).
As with Part I, again there are ‘missing sequences’, in which betrayals are set up. But I came to realize that (in both films) we still see all that we need to see (and learn). And the ‘removal’ of such scenes is, in part, what encourages the viewer to consider subsequent viewings.
I’m glad I rewatched these two films back-to-back, which brought on a cumulative power.