There were a few things I realized after watching The Godfather and then The Godfather Part II for the first time. One was that even with so many pop culture references (from making orders one can't refuse to horse heads found in beds), there's still something unpredictable and energizing about the first time you watch Francis Ford Coppola's career-defining films. I wasn't surprised by the Fredo (John Cazale) betrayal nor was I shocked by Michael's (Al Pacino) slow moral deterioration. These are things that I knew would happen even if i tried to avoid spoilers simply due to the nature of my job. However, what did surprise me by the time I finished The Godfather Part II was not only how immensely influential it was on narrative storytelling but also how it held up surprisingly well half a century later.
I know it's slightly silly for me to act surprised by this — good movie is good, what a plot twist. But the reality is a lot of film classics simply don't hold up as well anymore. Any film junkie will enjoy them, but if you were to sit a 20-year-old down, I'm sure the majority of them would be reaching for their phone twenty minutes in. While there are still some dated aspects to Part II and there are pacing issues to Michael's story in the latter half of the film, there's a timeless quality to The Godfather Part II that simply can't be matched. Perhaps it's because it's so clear that every mob movie seems to have The Godfather in its DNA. However, what sets the film apart, especially Part II, is that Coppola and Mario Puzo's story goes to a place that movies are still afraid to go to today.
Movies Are Afraid To Write a Character Like Michael Corleone
After spending a lifetime hearing that The Godfather Part II is one of those rare movie sequels that surpasses its predecessor, it struck me that although the story is darker and more complex, Part II is a much more difficult movie to watch. Indeed, Part II is more complex narratively and thematically, but if you asked me to choose which movie I want to watch again for fun, it would be the former. Why? Well, we spend the lion's share of Part II with Michael Corleone, an irredeemable protagonist that I felt myself rooting against by the end of the film. But that's not a bad thing. While most movies these days will eventually redeem any moral ambiguity in a character, especially in the case of a protagonist, The Godfather Part II never shies away from showing just how deep Michael's gotten caught in the web his father constructed. At no point was I under any delusions about the direction Michael was heading. Sometimes, I reveled in how cunning he was, and sometimes, I cringed at how cold and calculated he could be, but there was never a moment when I suspected he would regain the soul we were watching him lose. And that's what made it so fantastic. The film effectively follows a villain's story, not a hero's, and even today, filmmakers struggle with walking the line when it comes to this character study.
Coppola isn't afraid to show us just how nasty Michael can be. He might have been green in The Godfather and still relatively pure of heart, but by Part II, this man is as bad as they come. He trusts no one, he seemingly loves no one, and he leaves behind a trail of bodies that include not only his enemies but his family and friends. It struck me that of all the storytelling lessons people have taken from The Godfather, no one seems to be able to imitate Michael's arc perfectly. Those who try to end up either demonizing the character or excusing them, but Coppola walks the very fine line between allowing us to understand Michael's plight while also giving us very fair reasons to criticize him. He's not a good man, but we know that there was once a potential for that good man to exist. It's that potential that keeps us hoping that maybe, just maybe, he'll spare Fredo. Maybe he'll let Kay (Diane Keaton) do what's best for the kids. Maybe he'll actually trust Tom (Robert Duvall) rather than question him. But Michael reminds us at the bitter end that whatever's left of a good conscience and his soul is now completely rotted away — we watched its systematic demise.
Al Pacino Is No Marlon Brando, and Neither Is Robert DeNiro
There's nothing I can say about Al Pacino's performance as Michael that hasn't been said already. All I can do is praise that brooding intensity and quiet menace that Pacino exudes; he is viciously intimidating in every scene, a dark cloud hanging over his head as he tries to smoke out the traitor that nearly got him killed. While Marlon Brando's Vito was formidable, there was a natural warmth to him and nobility that told you that Vito had a code. There is a moral backbone there that has completely disappeared from Michael. However, what also becomes apparent is that in the absence of Brando, there wasn't really anyone who could match Pacino's energy on screen as a scene partner. Michael feels so locked up and private that it never feels like anyone is worthy of breaking through his walls other than his father, especially toward the end of the film.
It's a shame Brando never returned for the flashback scene at the end of the movie because he stands out as a top performer in the series, and seeing Brando once again in a scene with Pacino could have done a lot of good for bridging the gap between the two generations that are depicted in this movie. As it is, the movie is not subtle in how it parallels a young Vito's (Robert De Niro) rise through the ranks of the Cosa Nostra in the early 1910s to Michael's downfall within the Corleone crime family. And, although it isn't subtle, it's still effective. Watching Vito confidently take control and build the empire from the ground up while seeing Michael try to hold the pieces of his family legacy together makes for an effective comparison.
It's impossible to step into the shoes of Brando's larger-than-life performance as Vito, but De Niro's version of the character feels a lot closer to Michael than The Godfather we meet in the first movie. It works to the story's benefit, because although Michael and a young Vito visually seem similar and are around the same age, their paths diverge at so many points, the character acts more as a foil to Michael than a secondary protagonist. While Vito faces the challenges of immigrating to America without two pennies to rub together, forced to adapt to a new environment where he has absolutely no one and doesn't speak the language, Michael still faces discrimination as an Italian-American despite his assimilation into American culture. It's an interesting look at the generational challenges a family faces, especially an immigrant family across several generations. The Godfather Part II is pure magic when these two Corleone men and their storylines slot perfectly into place with each other.
'The Godfather Part II's Fatal Flaw Lies in Trying To Do Too Much
Image via Paramount Pictures
On screen, Vito's backstory was more interesting than Michael's tango with Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) and Frank Pentangeli (Michael V. Gazzo). Not only is Vito's narrative arc stronger, but it's far less chaotic. I found myself eager to return back to the past anytime we cut to the present. Yes, it's the simpler of the two tales but, caught in the mire of conspiracy, Michael's story can feel utterly disorienting.
It's clear that Coppola was balancing a lot of plates with this film. Not only did it have to be a story about Vito and his immigrant experience, but it also had to establish Vito's origins and parallel that to Michael's current-day struggles. Michael also needed to continue the violent storyline of the mob while also playing into his moral decay; it had to build a house of cards around Michael's assassination attempt and obfuscate who the true traitor was. The movie also had to juggle Michael as a father and a husband, Michael as a brother, and Michael as the Godfather. There's a lot happening, and it just doesn't feel like Coppola had enough time to tell the story the way it should have been told despite that three-hour runtime.
Related
Far be it for me to tell Coppola what to do, but the storyline with Roth and Pentangeli, the stint in Cuba, and the Senate committee all feel like dead weight. What's interesting about Michael is his relationship with those closest to him, not with characters we barely know who need exposition to introduce them. Connie (Talia Shire), Fredo, and Tom all have better story potential with Michael, who is unnecessarily shipped off on his own again after the attempt on his life. Only, instead of a romantic and idyllic time in Italy, he's caught in Cuba right before Batista's resignation and Fidel Castro's regime. As interesting as it is to see Michael butt up against a significant time in history and hear his commentary on the rebels in Havana, the time should have been spent focusing on his relationship with his siblings.
Meanwhile, Fredo's plight is only ever really hinted at. We don't know about his relationship with his siblings, but we can only surmise from The Godfather that few people take him seriously, and he's effectively been skipped in the line of succession. Birth order aside, he's got big Connor Roy energy. However, considering Fredo's vital role in this film, he feels woefully underdeveloped despite his importance. The same goes for Keaton's Kay, Connie, and Tom. The narrative heart and weight lies with the Corleones, not the Cosa Nostra.
Despite All That, 'The Godfather Part II' Is Still a Masterpiece
Image via Paramount Pictures
Despite a struggle with pacing and focus on unnecessary corners of the story, it's not hard to understand why The Godfather Part II is as beloved as it is. It's epic in all meanings of the word. It spans generations, it's tragic, it's jam-packed with everything from family drama to legal drama. Gordon Willis' masterful work with a camera makes every shot look sumptuous, saturated with dark hues and dimensional shadows. It's like looking at a live Caravaggio oil painting, especially in the moments when Michael is on his own, swaddled in warm lighting, staring off into the void and contemplating his life.
The film also would not be complete without Nino Rota's compositions, which are both iconic and can instantly throw you into the depth of feeling that a character is experiencing at the moment. The lilting introduction of the "Love Theme" that kicks into a grand sweeping melody is so intricately linked to the film that it would be impossible to imagine the movie without it. Ultimately, The Godfather Part II is a masterclass in telling the story of two men. Turning the underdog and hero of the previous film into the villain of this one is damn near impossible to pull off while still telling a balanced story that doesn't feel outlandish. This film accomplishes that, and it's hard to think that anyone can perform the same balancing act that Coppola has managed here ever again.
The Godfather Part II is available to stream on Paramount+ in the U.S.
Francis Ford Coppola's 'Part II' follow-up to 'The Godfather' paints a richer, more complex story and creates a protagonist unlike any other.
Pros
Superb performances from Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.
The exploration into Vito's origins is a fantastic interlude in the film.
'Part II' explores Michael's darkness and morality in a way it never has before.
Cons
There's too much going on that affects both the pacing and makes the story feel bloated at times.
The early life and career of Vito Corleone in 1920s New York City is portrayed while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on the family crime syndicate.
Image via Paramount Pictures
Image via Paramount Pictures
Image via Paramount Pictures
English (US) ·