The Reconsideration of The Godfather Part II and The Entity of the Novel.

I didn’t watch The Godfather Part II as frequent as the first part because it rarely appeared on TV. It was many years ago when I last saw it. Recently, I began to think that maybe sequel isn’t better in part that tells the story of the Corleone family under Michael. I resolved, for myself, to purchase the original book first and re-watch the first and second flicks then.

The inner feeling propelled me not to buy the novel. I began to read it illegally. I knew some details before, but after several pages, I realized it is an exploitation in that the characters have sexual tendencies, which can contains sordid commentaries. It was bawdy. The author Mario Puzo didn’t care about writing good. He simply put tight sentences and gave short characteristics to personages. It was another time, realizing how filmmakers could turn a downgraded material into wonderful story by choosing the finest parts or only using ideas. I intentionally started looking for lines that were said in the flick: either the words weren’t said there or the original interpretation was weaker. The book already takes away the intrigue by showing Vito initially envisioned Michael in his place, but changed his mind after the latter went to war. In the adaptation, Don Corleone appoints his senior Sonny, and that circumstantially he chooses the youngest son.

The director didn’t want to make The Godfather because he had a similar disgust to the material, but he rethought by seeing a genius in Puzo later.

The moviemaker didn’t intend to make The Godfather Part II (in recent years, this person speaks there should be only a first part). This film I only watched after I ended with reading the novel. He was coaxed by the studio saying to him about a commercial potential if produce the sequel shortly. The director wanted to implement from the novel how Vito Corleone created his criminal family in the first movie, but it didn’t fit into length. He agreed because that and the filmmaker wanted to realize his own idea of showing father and son at the same age.

The origins of Don Corleone is a fascinating side in The Godfather Part II. I would add men to Don Fanucci and remove the line, which wasn’t in theatrical version, is that he is fake mobster, as this corroborates one scene about which I’ve told once, and it was in the novel. The idea is impossible, especially do it in the Little Italy where everyone knows each other.

When young Vito and his mother visit Don Ciccio–who has dozens of men–but when Corleone returns for revenge the security isn’t big, which is quite common element in cinema. It can explain by that the rest mafiosi are somewhere around (and the story assumes so), but the person who opened the gates was supposed to stay at his post during the escape of heroes. I don’t criticize. Just facts. It doesn’t make less lovable. A little discrepancy is acceptable there.

After rewatching The Godfather Part II, I realized the script of Michael Corleone’s part is weak – it required another rewriting.

Many years ago, after reading that Clemenza was supposed to believe that Michael could betray him and go against the Corleone Family, I thought it wasn’t believable this character could testify against people he has strong ties to and accept such nonsense when Rosato Brothers wanted to kill him–Peter Clemenza was never a naïve man. After Richard S. Castellano and Paramount couldn’t resolve between each other, a new character was created: Frank Pentangeli whom played Michael V. Gazzo. It would be rightful to use a hero with this personality for the role.

The second factor was that Mario Puzo didn’t like that Fredo would be slayed while his mother is still alive. The solution was to make his parent dead. I thought, and it confirmed in that watching, it was not an elaborated move – she just passed away without a reason.

Casting of Michael V. Gazzo was a misfire. His Frank Pentangeli is a comedian. The whimsical gimmicks of this interpretation don’t make to perceive him as a member of mafia. I can’t believe in the attempted assassination he saw truth in words that was ordered by Michael Corleone. The scene looks that Rosato Brothers gang wanted to kill him and their speaking was done as destroy him psychologically. That doesn’t look as pretending, as the script suggests – but it was a failure of director. In any case, neither of two variants would have worked. Pentangeli didn’t lose the loyal men under his control. Later, when he wants to speak against the Corleone Family, the appearance of his brother was the idea that arrived from the air – the scriptwriters didn’t find better how to resolve there. The presence of his brother Vincenzo influences on changing his testimony. It is unclear whether the relative is a member of mafia, as it was said in the screenplay (while the film should do that again), but the behavior shows he isn’t. The explanation that his sibling is authority for him is the nonsensical explanation.

No development had Michael’s killer in Cuba whose name in the credits is Bussetta. He just appears. Corleone’s head didn’t choose the right man for elimination of Hyman Roth if Bussetta could sneak with any melee and fire weapons into a building, but he improvises, as uses a hanger to take the life of Johnny Ola, which could likely break. The presence of the character was short and he was just a foil for the story.

Fredo’s betrayal could be done with a strong basis on disrespecting treatment by his brother, but he did it because he naively believed that Michael is in danger. However, that line is unclear. Fredo was supposed to guess that Ola lied to him, but there are no actions from him. Another thing that contradicts to the hero is that only he could open the curtains and prevent Hyman Roth’s assassination attempt in Cuba.

Hyman Roth should have stayed a powerful mobster after the failure in Cuba, but he an escaping criminal with no land. There is no point for fall, and no showing his unlawful deeds as well.

Pentangeli’s suicide was also a far-fetching act. Why would he do that? One more underdeveloped element is that he is under protection. It assumes his location should be covered in secrecy. But it is known, and the potential threat–which appeared in Tom Hagen–comes to him and asks to finish with yourself.

America in The Godfather Part II seems a lawless land. Michael Corleone couldn’t buy everybody. There could have been a good development about the kids with Kay by resolving that he or somebody of his mafia’s members slays her. It would look splendid if he did himself. It could make a stunning analogy with Apollonia. In reality, Kay could sue, get children, and live under protection. The thing that weakens the sequel is how much it has family melodrama instead of being a flick about mafia, which The Godfather focuses.

Connie’s line in confusing. She asks Michael not to kill Fredo and says how she loves him. Soon she involves herself in killing John Casale’s character.

Michael want to make dead Hyman Roth, even though he is already in so-called troubles. The Corleone’s head says that wants to kill only enemies. Why he didn’t mention Willie Cicci at least? What happened to this character after the trials? Does he hide or not? It doesn’t matter. He became an informant without a point. Cicci was arrested when he committed shooting into men who tried to kill his boss. No explanation and no showing his criminal record that could turn him on this way. Did he shoot with the illegal gun? I do not think he could be frightened by a short prison term.

The Cuban affair is the excellent line and that scene where the protagonist walks out from the building after Batista proclaims the resignation. Pacino’s acting is grabbing in how he shows the transformation of his hero, except the scene of meeting with Pentangeli in New York where his calming after the burst was surrealistic. Michael’s becoming darker is an astonishing development of the character and it calls for continuation to get know his future. Anyway, the way he came to that stance hadn’t a mighty script. The Godfather Part II became weaker, and the threequel carried on that line. Probably, it was about twenty years ago when I watched the television version of The Godfather flicks. I ended on the last scene of the second part. The next time I’ll do it on the final of the first flick, in which Kay lights the candles, as she does in the last strokes of the novel.