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, sordid tendencies. 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 re-watching The Godfather Part II, I realized the script of Michael Corleone part is weak – it required rewriting.

Many years ago after reading that Clemenza was supposed to believe that Michael could betray him and go against Corleone Family, I thought it wasn’t believable this character could testify against people that he has strong ties and believe in the nonsense when Rosato Brothers wanted to kill him. After Richard S. Castellano and Paramount couldn’t make deal, there was created a new character Frank Pentangeli whom played Michael V. Gazzo. It would be rightful to use a hero with this personality for part.

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

Casting of Michael V. Gazzo was misfire. His Frank Pentangeli is a comedian. The whimsy gimmicks of this interpretation don’t make to perceive him as a member of mafia. I can’t believe in the attempted assassination he accepted words that was ordered by Michael Corleone. However, that scene looks that Rosato Brothers gang wanted to kill him, it doesn’t look as pretention as it was the script, but that was a failure of director. Anyway, no one of two variants wouldn’t work. Pentangeli didn’t lose the loyal men under his control. Later, when the appearance of his brother is contrived. Changing testimony under influence of his brother Vincenzo changes his testimony. It is unclear was the relative is a member of mafia, as the screenplay says, but the behavior shows he isn’t and the explanation that his sibling is authority for him is such a nonsense.

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

Fredo’s betrayal could be done with a strong basis on disrespecting treating by his brother, but he did it in the movie because he naively believed that Michael 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 is that it only him who could open the curtains and prevented Hyman Roth’s assassination attempt.

Hyman Roth should have stayed a powerful mobster after the failure with Cuba, but he an escapee criminal with no land. No point of his fall and no showing his unlawful deeds.

Pentangeli’s suicide is contrived. Why should he do that? Another underdeveloped is that he is under protection and it assumes his location should be covered in secrecy, but it is known and the potential threat, which was in Tom Hagen, comes to him and asks to finish with yourself.

America in The Godfather Part II seems as a lawless land. Michael couldn’t buy everybody. There could turn a good development about kids with Kay by resolving that he or somebody of his members slay her. However, it would look poetic if he did by himself bringing analogies with Apollonia. In the reality, she could sue, get children and live under protection. The thing that weakens the sequel is a lot about family melodrama instead of mafia on which The Godfather is accented.

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.

mention Willie Cicci at least? What happened with this character after trials? Does he hide or not? It doesn’t matter. He became an informant without a reason. Cicci was arrested when he shoot into men that tried to kill his boss. No explanation and no showing his crime record that could turn him on this way. Did he shoot from the illegal gun? However, 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 where his calming after the burst was surrealistic. Michael’s becoming darker is nice and it asked a continuation, but the way he came to that hadn’t a mighty development. The Godfather Part II became weaker and the threequel continued 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 scene of the first flick in which Kay lights the candles, as she does in the last strokes of the novel.