There were a few things I realized after watchingThe Godfatherand thenThe Godfather Part IIfor the first time. One was that even with so many pop culture references (frommaking orders one can’t refuseto horse heads found in beds), there’s still something unpredictable and energizing about the first time you watchFrancis Ford Coppola’scareer-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 finishedThe Godfather Part IIwas not onlyhowimmenselyinfluential it was on narrative storytellingbut 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 toPart IIand there are pacing issues to Michael’s story in the latter half of the film,there’s a timeless quality toThe Godfather Part IIthat simply can’t be matched. Perhaps it’s because it’s so clear that every mob movie seems to haveThe Godfatherin its DNA. However, what sets the film apart, especiallyPart II, is that Coppola andMario 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 thatThe Godfather Part IIis one of those rare movie sequels that surpasses its predecessor, it struck me that although the story is darker and more complex,Part IIis 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 ofPart IIwith 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 IInever 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 inThe Godfatherand still relatively pure of heart, but byPart 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 fromThe 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, butCoppola 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 apotentialfor that good man to exist. It’s that potential that keeps us hoping that maybe, just maybe, he’ll spare Fredo. Maybe he’ll letKay (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. WhileMarlon 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 screenas 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 parallelsa 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, althoughit 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 ofBrando’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 IIis 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
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 thatCoppola 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, andit just doesn’t feel like Coppola had enough time to tell the story the way it should have been tolddespite that three-hour runtime.
‘The Godfather’ Has a Sequel – And It’s Not the One You’re Thinking
The Corleone Expanded Universe never took off.
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 fromThe Godfatherthat 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
Despite a struggle with pacing and focus on unnecessary corners of the story, it’s not hard to understand whyThe Godfather Part IIis 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 withoutNino 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 IIis 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, andit’s hard to think that anyone can perform the same balancing act that Coppola has managed here ever again.
The Godfather Part IIis available to stream on Paramount+ in the U.S.
Watch on Paramount+
The Godfather Part II
Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Part II’ follow-up to ‘The Godfather’ paints a richer, more complex story and creates a protagonist unlike any other.
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.
