When I did the AFI Challenge, there was one sequel in the entire list: The Godfather Part II. The Stacker list has more than one sequel, and one case where a sequel is represented but not the original. Sequels are tricky beasts at the best of times, and while the second Godfather film is often considered a worthy follow-up to a film that often tops “best movies of all time” lists, it is amazing that Part II is any good at all considering how often the sequel just plain isn’t. Consider, if you will, that director Francis Ford Coppola couldn’t pull off the magic a third time when he made Part III many years later. I have no plans to ever watch Part III, but my understanding was the third installment was originally going to be about a mob war between Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone and Robert Duvall’s Tom Hagen, a scenario that, honestly, I could see building when I watch the first two.
Last time, I had a hard time discussing the second because I didn’t want to say anything yet about the first, limiting what I had to say. This time, I just think it’s kinda weird The Godfather even got a sequel
In general, there’s a reason why I am a little amazed that there even is a second Godfather. I’m living in an age where sequels seem a lot more plentiful, but the sorts of films that get sequels fit into only a handful of genres. Superhero and action films get sequels. Comedies and kid films get sequels. Horror films get sequels. Heavy dramas like The Godfather don’t really get sequels in 2023. Then again, it’s difficult to even find something like The Godfather in 2023. However, the big problem is that many sequels don’t work. It’s not hard to see why either.
Horror relies on surprise and dread. When a monster’s tricks are known, it’s harder for them to be spooky. That’s probably why Freddy Krueger and Chuckie the doll went from scary to comedic.
Comedy, meanwhile, relies on good jokes, but too many comedy sequels just try to recycle the best known bits, often in a more “extreme” way that isn’t funny.
Superhero and action often does the same thing as before, and the novelty of a new character is gone.
Now, there are plenty of examples of sequels that got it right. But the key to getting it right is basically what The Godfather Part II did so well: continue the story of the main characters. For too many sequels, there’s little if any character growth so much as a hope from producers and studios that just hanging out with the familiar characters for another two hour adventure will suffice. That’s not what happens with the better sequels. For all his faults, George Lucas, even as he repeated plot points and ideas, never quite repeated himself too blatantly with any of his Star Wars films. Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is arguably the story of Bruce Wayne’s healing from a childhood trauma. It just so happens part of that healing takes the form of dressing up in a batsuit and beating up criminals. The first three Toy Story films explored the idea of what it meant to be a child’s toy as the child grew up and eventually moved on from their toys. Sure, some of these may not seem to be on the same level as others, but these are areas that filmmakers can explore through sequels.
Now consider the original Godfather. This is a heavy family drama. It’s masterfully told, and it’s often on par with the best films of American, if not world, cinema. Coppola made other great films, but he never equaled this one. And sure, the beancounters probably wanted The Godfather to get a sequel more than anyone else, but why would Coppola, for example, want to make another one of these? He was an aspiring auteur. He could have probably made anything he wanted in 1974. Why make another Godfather?
The short answer is he had more to say. The long answer is, well, he had a lot more to say by focusing on an older, more reclusive Michael (Pacino), a younger, up-and-coming Vito (Robert De Niro), and all the people that live with and love them. Vito rises in power. So does Michael. The difference is Vito seems to be building a family and Michael ends this one essentially alone, estranged from Kay (Diane Keaton) and having just had his remaining brother Fredo (John Cazale) executed.
Side note: since the last time I saw Part II, I have since learned that, apparently, it is insulting to call an Italian American “Fredo,” possibly because of this film series.
The differences between father and son are in many ways unsurprising. Vito came to America alone as a boy to escape another crime boss’s wrath back in Sicily. Scenes of Vito doing business are often a lot more low key and low stakes. He’s there to do as the mafia supposedly did when it formed: offer assistance to other people from the same nationality who felt it was the only way for them to get anywhere. While Vito goes show a couple acts of violence and murder over the course of the film, as he rises, he gets more of what he wants through a system of earned favors and just his neighborhood reputation. Michael, meanwhile, is blackmailing US Senators to get some Vegas casinos under control, and though he rarely raises his voice, he arguably doesn’t have to. Michael is testifying before Congress and having rivals gunned down in shots that look an awful lot like Jack Ruby’s shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Is that something Vito would have wanted for his son?
The first film suggested Vito didn’t want his son to run the family business so much even as it was clear Michael was the only one who could. Here, though, Vito doesn’t say much of what he wants aside from revenge against the man who had killed Vito’s father and older brother first. He saw organized crime as a good avenue to wealthy and power, so that’s the route he took. But Vito has a loving wife and adoring children. Michael doesn’t have either of those things because the young, idealistic Michael of the first film died a long time before, bringing out a more sinister and cynical side that an American woman like Kay just never understands as more than Sicilian masculinity at work. She isn’t even wrong either. Fredo’s reasoning for betraying his brother was that he didn’t like the fact he took orders from his kid brother who treated him like hired help because Fredo wasn’t all that bright.
I said last time I actually preferred the Vito scenes to the Michael scenes, even though Michael was probably in the film more. I think I know why now: I am much more interested in Vito’s story than Michael’s because the more interesting story for me is how something is built, and not how something is destroyed. Vito built that family, and when Part II ends with Michael sitting alone on a bench, it’s pretty darn clear that he somehow destroyed it.
NEXT: Another three hour film is up next, and another one that can be seen as part of a saga. That, of course, is the first part of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings adaptation with 2001’s The Fellowship of the Ring.
0 Comments