Several years after the events of the first Godfather, Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) continues his life as ruthless head of the Mafia by going into business with one Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg). But both Roth and Michael come to blows and end up plotting against each other. Meanwhile, in a series of flashbacks, we see the life of Michael’s late father, Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro). After his parents and elder brother are murdered in Sicily, 9-year-old Vito emigrates to New York City, and as a young man begins to gain increasing power in business and community…
And here we are again - back in the lives of the Corleones. It’s quite a feat for a sequel to have won, let alone get nominated for Best Picture. This, and the third Lord of the Rings film, are the only direct sequels to have ever won. You could make a case for Silence of the Lambs but we won’t open that can of worms just now.
I can only assume that audiences of 1974 were still riding the wave of “Godfather hype”, because this sequel is far inferior to its predecessor. In fact, this film was already in pre-production before the first film was released, such was the level of this hype. The Godfather Part II never quite reaches the same intensity of the first. I think the problem is that the non-linear alternating between the present day action and the flashback sequences renders the plot disjointed and lacklustre because it never gets time to build up before jumping to another timeline. Men kill and betray each other for various reasons, and then they’re doing the same thing in the past but for different reasons. It’s like a tired old car that keeps stopping and starting.
As a result, character motivations and developments get lost in the mire. Diane Keaton gets nothing to do other than sit in the background, and then suddenly she’s decided to leave Michael approximately two hours in. Her reasons are obvious, but it comes from nowhere. No full explanation is really given for Fredo’s betrayal of his brother Michael, Cuban politics are summarised quite insultingly just to get the characters there for a little bit, and Talia Shire’s Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress demands an explanation bearing in mind that she barely appears and a quick re-write could have eliminated her entirely. Are people really so obsessed with this franchise that they’ll vomit awards at it?!
At this point in the project, we are in an age referred to as New Hollywood. With new laws around who owns the actors and the movie theatres, less restrictions on sex and violence, and televisions becoming more prevalent in households, Hollywood had to change. As a result, younger producers and directors came to the forefront. Francis Ford Coppola was in his early 30s when directing these films, and 29-year-old Spielberg would be releasing Jaws the following year. These educated youngsters were heavily influenced by European, Asian and art house cinema, and now non-linear storylines, unresolved stories, character and atmosphere-driven plots and blood and boobs were more the order of the day. As we have seen, in some instances this works. But The Godfather Part II, which ticks every New Hollywood box, may have been fashionable at the time but for me it hasn’t lasted. It’s limp and lifeless and needed the intensity and innovation of the original.
A saving grace are some of the flashback scenes. De Niro does a great impersonation of Marlon Brando’s iconic performance, and his story provides much insight into the lives of impoverished Italian immigrants in New York. When Michael comes up against adversity, I noticed that the film makes a strong comparison between the two eras. While Vito was able to establish himself as a renowned Mafia boss in a time when his community was neither policed nor provided for, Michael is trying to maintain this Sicilian vigilantism in an age when laws were becoming tighter and provision for the poor was improving. Michael’s culture and masculine politics are becoming obsolete. It’s just a shame that the film takes so long to get there, and loses focus from it pretty quickly.
I’ll probably watch the third film at some point in my life. But it was nominated in 1990 and lost to Dances With Wolves, so we won’t need to write 500 words each on it.
Highlight
The opening flashback sequences showing Italian immigrants arriving at New York and looking at that famous symbol of American hope- the Statue of Liberty. There is a sense of great promises and great opportunities ready to be broken or lost. Almost like this film!
Lowlight
That’s exactly the problem with this film- it’s constantly in lowlight. Even when someone was holding a gun on someone else (God knows who or why), I felt it more urgent to shout “Turn a light on!” rather than “Duck!”
Mark
2/10
Hollywood I have a problem. Or rather you have a problem. You’re size-obsessed. But as any experienced person will tell you, it’s not the size that matters, rather what you do with it.
Hollywood, what is your obsession with having THREE HOUR FILMS? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YOU DO NOT NEED THREE HOURS. The number of films that actually succeed in holding attention and being good for a full three hours is tiny. The only one I can think of, off the top of my head, is Titanic and that’s because it changes from a romance film to a disaster movie halfway through, effectively rendering it two 90 minute films.
But here we are again, faced with another three hour film about a bunch of irritating Italian gangsters all muttering about revenge while standing annoyingly so far in the shadows that you spend most of the scene squinting at the screen and saying ‘is that the brother’s friend who stabbed whatshisface?’
Put simply, I do not care. I don’t care about any of them. Al Pacino is staring at the screen trying to look haunted. Diane Keaton is so dull that her best bit is when she rolls off a bed covered in a sheet trying to avoid being shot. The script is so bad. Sample line: ‘at this moment I feel no love for you at all.’ It is hackneyed, unrealistic and plain boring.
I actually tried to take a nap halfway through in the hope I’d wake up at the credits. This was three hours of endurance. It may well make intelligent points about the nature of crime or corruption, but it does it in such a contrived, muddled manner that you begin to think the random person who slits his wrists in a bath had the right idea. And what was that person’s role in the film? Your guess is as good as mine.
I think we’ve established that I spent this three hours bored and confused. Minor highlight: Robert de Niro was alright. And if the film had actually eschewed Boring Michael and His Boring Descent Into Staring Into Distances, and spent a sensible amount of time (what the hell is wrong with ninety minutes?!) plotting the path of Vito Corleone’s past and rise to power - it could have been interesting. The rise of an oppressed individual into a person of power is infinitely interesting. Or just watch Scarface which shows you the entire 6 hour Godfather cycle of rising and falling power in UNDER THREE HOURS.
Let’s just take a minute. Moana is ninety minutes. It is a film that encompasses multiple strands and backstories; features comedy, adventures, failure, succeeding, discovering one own’s inner strength, and a beautifully illustrated point about evil and darkness actually coming from unhappiness and anger. And it’s ninety minutes. And a children's film!
No. This is not good enough. This should not have won. They should put a higher wattage in their bulbs, cut their films in half and get better scriptwriters. Al Paci-NO.
Highlight
I found an excellent recipe for Mexican Baked Eggs on google when I gave up trying to follow any of the confusing, overwritten strands, and I’m very excited to try it for brunch soon.
Lowlight
Egotistical film-makers who think they can ask audiences to sit through three hours of their unlikeable dull work. Do better.
Mark
0/10
No comments:
Post a Comment