This is part of a series of articles reviewing the American Film Institute's Top 100 Films, as unveiled in 2007. Why am I doing this? Because the damned cinemas were closed and I had to review something, and I can't stop now until I finish.
(M) ★★★★★
Director: Francis Ford Coppola.
Cast: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Robert De Niro, John Cazale, Talia Shire, Lee Strasberg, Michael V. Gazzo, G. D. Spradlin, Richard Bright, Gastone Moschin, Tom Rosqui, Bruno Kirby, Frank Sivero, Francesca De Sapio, Morgana King.
 |
| "Kiss me like you mean it." |
The Godfather Part II is the only sequel on the AFI 100 list. Others are worthy. The Empire Strikes Back is better than Star Wars, Toy Story 3 is better than Toy Story, and The Two Towers and Return Of The King are both better than Fellowship Of The Ring. But Star Wars, Toy Story and Fellowship were firsts - they were groundbreaking masterpieces that moved the goal posts for everyone that followed, which is why they're on this list, and their sequels aren't. Yet The Godfather Part II makes the cut, arguably because it set a template those other sequels would follow - dig deeper, hit harder, push further.
Like all good sequels, The Godfather Part II is a continuation of an already great story, reaping what was sown in the first film, but also ploughing new ground. Part I follows the downfall of a good man, who crosses lines he never intended to cross in order to honour his father and his family's business.
But Part II shows the cost of that man's actions, and while it demonstrates how far the apple has fallen from the tree, it also shows the inevitability of violence within the Corleone family. It's a fate Michael Corleone can't escape, and it consumes him in Part II. It's telling that Michael Corleone (an incandescent Pacino) is an anti-hero in the first film, yet is a downright villain in the second. The AFI even put him at #11 in their list of the greatest cinematic villains of all time thanks to his actions in The Godfather Part II.
This amazing video sums all this up and more:
As before, Michael is a man struggling to maintain control. In the first film, he's helping his family do this. In the sequel, he's a lone wolf, heading a pack that is fraying and straying. The schisms are many - he has feuds, minor and major, with his siblings Tommy (Duvall), Connie (Shire) and Fredo (Cazale), his wife Kay (Keaton), disgruntled capo Frank Pentangeli (Gazzo), and influential businessman Hyman Roth (Strasberg). Michael shows there is no line he won't cross to settle these feuds and ultimately expand his empire.
Part II's brilliance is the way it demonstrates the growing dark that engulfs Michael's soul largely through the juxtaposition between Michael and the backstory of his father Vito (a subdued yet powerful De Niro). Almost every crime Vito commits is for a justifiable reason - he turns to theft after unfairly losing his jobs, kills a ruthless Don who rules his neighbourhood with an iron fist, and eventually avenges the deaths of his family at the end of a knife. Meanwhile Michael's crimes are dire non-negotiables driven by paranoia that are harder to excuse. Similarly, compare the way father and son treat their wives. Michael's journey to the dark side is complete in Part II.
Coppola, given full creative control following the huge success of Part I, delivers in spades. The macro view of the film across its hefty runtime (200 minutes) is perfect, and despite its immense size it moves at a good pace and balances its dual stories beautifully, aided in no small part by the editing team of Peter Zinner, Barry Malkin and Richard Marks under Coppolla's watchful eye.
But the micro view of the film is immaculate as well. The beautiful look, courtesy again of series cinematographer Gordon Willis, is stunning, with every shot a masterpiece - a darkness tingeing Michael's story, the sepia of the past in Vito's. As one study guide put it, "the cinematography of The Godfather Part II involves certainly one of the most amazing uses of photography and lighting in the movie history".
The first Godfather had three Oscar wins from 10 nominations; Part II won six out of 11 nods. None of these nominations were for cinematography sadly (Collins would finally get nominated for Part III), but its wins were worthy. Part II won best film (beating another Coppola film The Conversation), best director, best dramatic score, best adapted screenplay, and best art direction (it's recreation of Little Italy circa 1917 is remarkable).
Rounding out the Oscar wins was De Niro, edging out co-stars Gazzo and Strasberg for the best supporting actor Academy Award. Fresh off Scorsese's Mean Streets, it's a commanding performance, almost entirely in Italian too, that's far more subtle than the later roles that would make him famous. He re-imagines Vito (a role which also earnt Marlon Brando an Oscar) as a quiet watcher and decisive doer. There is no bombast in his performance, with everything taking place behind an expression that gives away little.
Pacino failed to win the Oscar for best actor, just as he had lost in the best supporting category for The Godfather. Art Carney's win in '74 is rightly regarded as one of the Academy's biggest mistakes, sparking the wonderfully named "Carney Consequence". History has looked far more favourably on Pacino's turn in Part II, which is rightly regarded as one of the greatest performances of all time.
The cliched Pacino "explosion" is born here - he goes from calm to killer in seconds. But it's used sparingly and is more measured than it would be in Pacino's latter years, and it sits alongside moments when he doesn't explode but could, which makes it more potent when he does. The scene where he discovers Fredo's betrayal is a masterclass, but so is every other second that Michael dominates the screen. It's a performance of quiet menace punctuated by brutal ferocity and dying embers of humanity, capped off by a growing realisation that Michael is, by film's end, almost entirely alone despite all his "success".
But everywhere you look is a great performance - Keaton, Shire, Duvall, Strasberg, Gazzo, Cazale, Spradlin; it's an embarrassment of riches. And that's probably the key word here: "riches". The Godfather Part II is about the lust for riches and their corrupting power, but the film itself is also a treasure trove in every way you want a film to be; from its text and subtext to its visual and actorly displays.
I would humbly submit that Part I is superior, but only by a matter of inches. But the argument over which is better is irrelevant when both films together represent one of the greatest one-two punches in cinematic history.
No comments:
Post a Comment