The Godfather Part II (1974)
Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Diane Keaton; d. Francis Ford Coppola; A+

Yes, indeed it is an unwritten law of Hollywood that sequels stink. What usually goes wrong in a sequel is that the filmmakers simply run out of substantial material to work with. Unless they have specifically set up the story so that it does hint at a sequel, all important things that could happen to a character happen within the original. The filmmakers frequently fail to recreate the magic that made the original so successful as well. This happens so often because filmmakers are too busy trying to duplicate that magic instead of just making a new film that shows an extention of the characters' lives. The same things that happened to the characters in the original happen in the sequel, thus making the sequel increadibly boring. Also, many sequels simply can't repeat the formula because many of the original's cast and crew either cannot or will not do a sequel, often using a giant hole where those persons used to be. Lastly, it's a given that most sequels are made merely for the money. Many, many times, though, is quality extanged for quantity, tying back to the idea that filmmakers repeating a formula instead of creating a new one.

There are of course exceptions to that rule. In cinema history has there been many excellent sequels made. One of the most famous examples is, of course, The Godfather Part II. It is not merely a repetition of a formula, it is a completely new film while still managing to keep ties with the original as an extention of the story set up in the original. The Godfather Part II does so in a fascinating way: It both extends the stories of Michael and Vito Coreleone by showing Michael's future and Vito's past, and as a result becomes a haunting and complex character study of Michael.

The film alternates between the early 1900's, as we watch Vito Corleone's (Robert DeNiro) rise to power in New York, and the 1950's, where we see Michael's moral corruption and separation from the world increase as he runs the Corleone Family. The contrast between the two Dons is sharp. Don Vito is a compassionate, loyal family man who believes in honor in every sense of the word, a retread of all the old and honorable kings and knights of centuries past. Yet he is also calculating and often disturbingly silent, playing a figurative game of chess with all he has come across, yet it always is a fair game. Michael, on the other hand, rules the Corleone Family with an iron fist covered in blood red velvet. He perceives himself to be the king his father was, yet in reality has none of the compassion or honor his father had. His game of chess is wholly unfair, leaving a cold blooded path of destruction wherever his power reaches. He kills and abandons without any consideration of other parties involved.

It can bee seen, though, that Michael is indeed a good Don. While The Godfather Part II may show Michael's fall from grace, it does not show the Corleone Family's fall from grace. Clearly Michael knows what he is doing, regardless of whether or not any emotion is present in his actions. Many of the scenes showing Michael at work signify to us that the Corleone family is on the rise. We know that he owns casinos in Las Vegas and is on his way to a business venture in Cuba. But, John Cusack said it best while compairing his lost soul mate and current fiance to The Godfather and The Godfather Part II: "It could even possibly be better than the original, but you have to see the original in order to appriciate the sequel." And this is precicely what The Godfather Part II does. We don't fully appriciate what Michael has done as a Don because he is compared to his father.

The more you look into the character study of Michael, the more you appriciate the performances of De Niro and Pacino, two great performances and excellent examples of two different styles of acting. De Niro, as a method actor, must observe the mannerisms of his character by looking not only at the characteristics of the character but also the environment, among other things. Then he tries to go through the some part of the character's experience as much as possible. Finally he is able to embody the character, making a full artistic statement about the character. One could say this is a perfect match for Don Vito, an observant man. Pacino, on the other hand, is a classical/theatrical actor. He knows what he is doing yet there is no "method." Theatrical characters must "project to the back row," making every single word and emotion clear to everyone in the audience. Yet again a perfect match for his character. Michael may be cold and distant but his emotions and intentions are clear. Both make a fascinating use of standing still, coming up with completely different results. De Niro makes it so he looks observant, while Pacino makes it so he looks menacing. Mannerisms also are important, as De Niro's fluid hand gestures make him look welcome, while Pacino's stacatto, precice movements make him look demanding, like a calcuated conductor. Both also play their roles with an air of dignity and restraint. De Niro won an Oscar for his role (though I believed he diserved it more for Taxi Driver), while Pacino was unfairly overlooked. Pacino's performance is a perfect example of underplaying, showing how one can give a stunning performance without playing a character with any mental or physical disabilities or melodramatic outbursts.

Gordon Willis's cinematography also plays a key role. Shadowy lighting emphasizes on Micheal's menacing nature and Vito's observant nature. Vito is often seein hiding in shadows, waiting for and observing a certain character before making a his move. Michael, on the other hand, is frequently photographed as either a backlighted shadow, or has casted shadows over his eyes and eyebrows, giving him a cold, almost unhuman look, a disturbing look of death. The shadowy lighting is also an interesting retread back to the old Mafia films of the studio system era in which mobsters were purposfully shot to look evil and menacing.

However, one must give credit where credit is due, and this film would be nothing without the superb script by Francis Ford Coppola and The Godfather author Mario Puzo, nor the direction by Coppola himself. One could criticize the fact that this movie is not even about the Mafia at all, considering that neither party grew up around the Mafia and even had to go as far as doing research just to conjure up even somewhat of a correct version of the Mafia. But that is the brilliance of the series: That two men who knew little about the Mafia could take it and create a fascinating story based on its structure. This is our modern-day Julius Ceasar, an old story of powerful kings and their cruel sons who succeed the throne after them. It is also fascinating to see how the men took the importance of family in the Mafia and used it to make a comment on general family values in The Godfather. Coppola's direction is quiet yet has an obvious presense in the film. His direction of the actors is superb, pulling out great performances even from those actors whose characters only have a breif apperance in the film. What interests me most about his direction is the positioning of actors and props. A lot of the positioning concerning Michael reminded me a lot of Citizen Kane, how actors were so frequently placed far and away from Orson Welles, or how Orson Welles was frequently shown in "dominating" angles.

The production design of this film is also very fascinating in terms of its ties to making the film feel antiquated yet modern. There are modern things like cars, televisions, and lamps, yet they while they may feel somewhat modern there is still that air of a bygone era, centuries after its time. Just compare The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III to GoodFellas and Casino, all of which take place in the same era. Scorsese's films are obviously the ones that feel more modern. Editing and cinematography also have something to do with this. The two aforementioned Scorsese movies are all quickly paced with vivid coloring, creating an atmosphere and a plotline that is similar to turning an oven up to full temperature and leaving food in there while feverently checking the food to hope it will cook faster. Instead what you get is extra hot and extra crispy food. The Godfather takes its time with slow editing and pacing. The images are sharp yet the colors are muted, again with the modern/antiquated feel.

It has been widley said that The Godfather Part II is the best of the series, and personally I completely agree. It is the most complete, the most complex, the most fascinating and egaging of the three. I would not say go ahead and see this before seeing the original, but do not delay in seeing this after seeing The Godfather. Prepare to witness some of the most stunning photography, hear some of the most beautiful music, see some of the greatest performances, and see one of the greatest stories ever to be on film.