One of the more interesting cinematic discussions is the one surrounding The Godfather Part II: Can a sequel be better than the original? I know for some people, it's a hard "No", no exceptions. I get it. Movie quality really comes down to invention and execution. With a sequel, there's not much room for invention, so any sequel comes with a significant handicap. And, anything a sequel gets right can easily be attributed back to the original since it laid the foundation. There's also the simple question of if a movie needs another movie to function, can it really be superior?
I can't buy into that hard line stance. There's too many easy exceptions to the rule. The easiest is when the first movie is just a tryout. Mad Max is fine, but The Road Warrior follows through with George Miller's vision more fully. Batman Begins sets up Nolan's Batman universe, but The Dark Knight is clearly the high point. Similar arguments could be made about Spider-Man 1 & 2, The Evil Dead 1 & 2, and El Mariachi & Desperado. There's also many cases of filmmakers making a different kind of movie with the sequel. Alien is SciFi horror. Aliens is SciFi action. The Terminator and T2 are chase movies at very different levels. Captain America: The First Avenger is a period war movie whereas The Winter Soldier is a contemporary political thriller. The sequels that spark the most heated debates are those that deepen everything about the first film. Before Sunrise is a beautiful love story, but the two sequels use that foundation to go to much more intimate depths. The Toy Story movies continue to find ways to dig deeper into childhood and the struggle to find meaning. Without the original films, these sequels couldn't do this, but the sequels are able to go places that a single movie couldn't earn. And let's not forget sequels that reflect the filmmakers simply getting better at what they are doing as they go along. Few would argue that the first Harry Potter or Bourne movies are the best in the series. Those series had to figure themselves out over time.
(I'd be remiss to not mention that most sequels are clearly worst than the original. I could list bad or inferior sequels for hours)
The Godfather movies are more in the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings category: I simply can't separate the movies in my mind. They are of a piece. I didn't intend to watch the two Godfather movies back to back (relatively speaking). After I finished the first one though, it just felt natural that I'd go onto the second. Mind you, I won't be going on to watch Part III again. While it's not as bad as its reputation suggests, it's a massive drop off from the first two.If I had to pick between the two movies, I'd pick Part II as the better movie. That's entirely because Robert de Niro's Vito Corleone flashbacks are my favorite parts of either movie. Both films are unbelievably stacked with talent though. I really need these films to remind me how great Al Pacino can be. His last decade of work can cloud those memories. If The Godfather shows the high point of the Italian mafia, then the flashback structure of Part II allows it to cover both the rise and the initial signs of decline. Bother are more interesting stories to me.
The De Niro flashbacks are exactly what you want from an origin story. They hit the points they need to and don't overstay their welcome. It doesn't get too cute with foreshadowing things and doesn't over complicate how Vito rose to power. Coppola is smart to make sure the flashbacks aren't too substantial. If you cut together just the Vito scenes, they wouldn't really work on their own. They just add to what's happening in the present.
In the present, well, poor, poor Fredo.
I'm a much bigger fan of the Godfather movies with my second viewing than I was after my first. I still wouldn't call them personal favorites, but I won't fight anyone who wants to call them classics.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment