At the end of Godfather 1, the audience was cheering and happy because Michael "won." Even though Michael's triumph came because he had a bunch of people murdered all at once. The director, Francis Coppola, was dismayed because the audience didn't seem to understand that the first movie was a tragic story about how a good young man turned into a monster. So when it came time to do the sequel, Coppola wanted to make absolutely certain the audience would know Michael had turned into a monster. He would leave no doubt. It's a very tragic story, and Michael is one of the greatest tragic characters in cinematic history -- precisely because he started out as such a good, idealistic young man who wanted nothing to do with the family business. The first time Michael commits murder, it is for the best possible motive. To save his father's life. Sollozzo and that cop were determined to kill Vito. It seems justifiable that Michael should kill them. But it starts Michael down a dark path that ultimately leads to this.
They also overlook that Vito is also a monster. The horse head was him. The band leader was him. The revenge at the end was planned by Michael and him. It was delayed till after he died so he could keep his word.
It reminds me a lot of the Dune books by Frank Herbert. Minor spoilers ahead, but the first book is a deconstruction of the hero's journey and why charismatic leaders may do terrible things with the best intentions. However, a lot of people didn't get that and viewed it as a straight good guy beats bad guy adventure tale so Herbert wrote a sequel, Dune Messiah, where Paul literally says, "You know there used to be these historical figures named Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler and I'm a worse mass murderer than either of those people."
People cheered because it was an "honorable thief" stopping drug dealers. The war on drugs has really quieted down in recent years, but in the '70s it was everywhere. A fifth of my graduating class died before they could attend graduation, and all of it traced back to drugs. People wanted something done legal or not. No surprise vigilante movies took off at this same time.
@@dannyheel1 Agreed. Vito is the "good" mobster, but he's still a mobster who has people killed and rules by using violence. Some people like to romanticize the mob, and I think this movie is Coppola's rebuttal.
Another great Pacino performance is Dog Day afternoon. He's being torn in a bunch of different directions and he gets on the phone with his wife. He's completely spent and you see his range of emotions change in that scene from having things together to completely lost in about 10 minutes. It's a long passage of just him on the phone with a lot of dialog. Sidney Lumet made him do a whole other take of it after he nailed it the 1st time. The exhaustion that Pacino's character and Pacino himself had is completely genuine. A master performance! It's one of my favorite films!
And, to underscore the importance of costume design, I want to point out the suit Pacino is wearing in DDA. It’s purposefully at least 2 sizes too big; Pacino’s disheveled appearance is an extension of his disheveled mind and actions. Brilliant!
@@Divamarja_CA YES!!! Great observation! So glad others recognize some of the greatness in DDA!! Thanks for the comment! If your a fan of DDA I highly recommend to everybody the documentary of the real story called behind the film called : The Dog. It's about the real guy that Pacino played and it's fascinating! The real guy is quite the character!!!! It's even stranger than what Pacino played in the movie. It really compliments the movie! It's on UA-cam here : ua-cam.com/video/Jgj55GgVAmU/v-deo.html
Nah man, it was his *eyes.* Anyone can yell or scream, but it's the feral look in his eyes that truly terrifying. That look of pure hate and rage for what she did. That is what was terrifying.
The ending sequence is so good, especially when you forget how different Michael was. Despite all the power he achieved, he found himself exactly where he was before: alone.
It's one of the best tragedies in literature. It's a masterclass on how to write a "Fall from Grace" story. It uses a lot of subtext, characters don't always announce how they feel. So when the confrontation arrives (Michael and Fredo, Michael and Kay), it's like an eruption of pent up emotions. That's why the dialogue feels realistic, because humans are typically like that.
And they rewrote that scene on the fly, as I understand it. Marlon Brando was supposed to be in it, but on the day of the shoot, he just didn't bother to show up.
The movie contrasts Vito and Michael. Both didn't plan to be mob heads. Vito became one out of necessity, but he slipped into the role with a certain guile and charm; he became comfortable with who he was as the 'Godfather'. Michael also became one out of necessity to protect his father, but as he grew more and more powerful, he ended up forgetting what was most important to him which was his family. And the more power he got, the more his grasp on his family slipped (mostly because of his methods to gain more power) and the more miserable he became.
It reminds me of Sonny's quote in "A Bronx Tale" where he's asked if it's better to be loved or feared. He replies it's best to have both but if you have to pick one then fear because it will keep people loyal. Vito was loved and feared but Michael was only feared.
The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Michael's journey starts with seeking security for his family but the more security he garners the farther his family gets from him. Michael is simply too cunning for his own good and it costs him his humanity.
That's the popular fiction, but the whole point of making it generational was that Michael is just playing out Vito's choices. The symbol in the title image is a set of puppet strings, but they are placed to that the word "Godfather" is on the strings. Vito and Michael are puppets of the system, and they let those strings attach to themselves in their pride and ego and greed. Vito could have accepted that paying off Fanucci is the price of doing business. Heck, he could have been satisfied with making excuses as he does with Fanucci, and chiseling down the payoff. But the way he wipes his cheek where Fanucci touched him shows his ego and resentment. The murder was purely out of pride and greed. His family was not going to starve, and Fanucci indicated he'd be willing to make VIto a part of his crew with more chances to profit off their association. Vito's money in the first movie has come from being Fanucci on a bigger scale. He leans on ordinary people, poor people, both hard-working normal guys and petty crooks, even those who only do it to feed their families. He takes a percentage of their income, and in exchange, he does not brutalize or murder them. Vito makes a big show of doing favors and "protecting" his people, but it's done for the same reason a business owner buys an alarm system and security cameras - to protect his source of profit. When Vito loses his job, it is so Fanucci can take care of his own friends and family, by giving someone Vito's job. But years later, he is doing the same thing to some other actor who was going to be cast in Jack Woltz's picture. When Tom Hagen goes out to talk to Woltz, it is a week before production. You better believe that role was cast. Maybe that role was going to be the actor's big break, get him noticed and rich and famous and let him buy his parents a nice house and send his kids to college ... but he loses the role, because Vito wants to give his godson a job.
@@larrybremer4930 Yes, and Vito is the one who started the Corleone family down that road. His embrace of violence to get wealthy turned his sons into criminals. Two of his sons were violent murderer and his other son and son-in-law betrayed his family out of greed or resentment. If Vito does not embrace the cycle of violence, Sonny and Michael don't necessarily get on board with him. If Vito had been a laborer or worked in a grocery store, Fredo & Carlo never feel entitled to more than their already affluent lifestyles, motivating them to sell out to Barzini and Roth.
You have to wonder - is he contemplating his sins or planning his next move? Remember his reaction to Tom when Tom suggests he's already won, you want to wipe everyone out?
@@errwhattheflip It's supposedly all for family, but half of his family is dead. He is pretty much alone. Almost everyone in the final scene is dead. The pursuit of their dream on behalf of family is a farce.
I admit I had to watch this 2-3 times before it occurred to me that the guy who got shot in the legs when Vito went back to Sicily to kill the man who killed his family was the SAME GUY in the wheel chair who looked after Michael after he killed the police captain and Solozzo. I like it that they expected people to see this for themselves, instead of explicitly showing it and making it easy to realize.
@@lewstone5430 I tend to "glance over" foreign names of minor characters. Without the name, all you know is there's a guy in Sicily in a wheel chair, and in a flashback we see a guy in Sicily apparently shot is such a way that his legs go out from under him.
I love Diane Keaton's silent acting in the senate hearing scene, when Michael is asked about the murder of the police captain, and it slowly dawns on her why Michael had to suddenly leave the country.
That's part of what makes GFII that rare feat of being a movie sequel equal to or better than the first. After GFII came out, you had to watch them both back to back to get the full picture. Unfortunately that wouldn't be possible for at least another 5-6 years until the release of the home VCR in the late 70s lol
I highly recommend reading about John Cazale, who played Fredo Corleone. He sadly passed away from lung cancer at 42, but left an amazing acting legacy. Also, the story of his partnership with the woman he loved (who devoted the last nine months of his life nursing him) is also well worth reading. Her name is Meryl Streep.
If I'm not mistaken every screen role Cazale played got him nominated for an Academy Award ...and he never once starred. Another actor that radiates through the role and keeps your eye riveted. He owns every scene he's in
If memory serves me he did 5 movies. Godfather I, Godfather II, The Deer Hunter and Dog Day Afternoon all become hits and classics. The fifth I can't remember. He was also involved heavily or engaged to Meryl Streep and died after The Deer Hunter.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business.
Yes, Fredo ran because he knew what Michael's kiss on the mouth meant. The kiss of death. Not as chilling as "Fredo, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend," but the die was cast with the kiss. After all, it was the second time that Fredo had gone against the Family (first was with Mo Greene).
The flashbacks were my favorite part of the movie too, not only because Vito has such a fascinating story but because we see that along with all of the cold, calculating brutality he was also a very kind, loving soul. And you see that as much as Michael may have inherited those first qualities from his father, he was sorrily lacking when it came to those latter qualities.
The reason the movie cross-cuts between the past (the old don) and the present (Michael) is that each scene is supposed to contrast what the father stood for and what the son now stands for: every scene where the old don acts with honor and helps his family and friends (including Clemenza) is preceded and followed by a scene where Michael acts dishonorably and turns on his own friends and family. Even the last two scenes of the movie are a contrast: the flashback of the old don coming home to be greeted warmly by his family, and the final shot of Michael sitting alone on a bench, with no family or true friends.
"Wait, don't you do it.. It ends like that? It ends so bleak and sad and everyone looks sad and everyone's mean and everyone's dead?" Perfect reaction dude. Some of us love movies like that haha.
Welcome to European Cinema. Yeah I know The Godfather is American but the typical American movie has a happy ending. European movies may have happy endings because it would be absurd to have a comedy end in tragedy. Although there are some tragicomedies. But with most European movies, characters who survive till the end are usally sadder but wiser. Or everybody dies! (Hamlet by W. Shakespeare and a few other tragedies he wrote).
That final shot is so haunting. It makes you think the whole movie, or even both movies, were him sitting in that chair years later ruminating on how he threw away his family.
It was a combustible combination - Some of you are acting like it's all Michael's fault - The difference between Pop and Michael is pop had a wife to help him keep the family together - Michael had a wife who turned against him - You are saying Mike "threw away " his family.... Uhhhh reality is - Kay literally violently destroyed part of the family - she aborted the baby. That was HER decision... But you can't blame her huh? Why?? BC she's a woman?? So it's ok for a woman to kill a baby... but its not ok for Michael to have people killed...?? WHich one's more innocent? The unborn baby.... Or the twisted sick adults michael has killed? The moral calculus isn't that simple: Life is often not like the movies : There's gray area..... people aren't all great or all bad. Not black and white. Kay isn't all innocent. And Michael isn't a complete monster. It's not that black and white.
They were a couple throughout the 1980s but broke up during the 1990s when Diane demanded they get married at last but Al refused. Despite that, they remained good friends.
John Cazale, who played Fredo, appeared in only six films before he died of lung cancer. All six films were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. They were -- The Godfather, The Conversation, GF 2, Dog Day Afternoon, The Deer Hunter (his last film) and GF 3 (posthumous archive footage.) Three of them won - GF 1 and 2 and Deer Hunter. An extraordinary actor.
Michael’s fall to darkness juxtaposed with Vito’s rise is absolutely brilliant and Michael’s abortion rage is some of the greatest acting I’ve ever seen his eyes are piercing through her
Diane Keaton does a spectacular acting job in the hotel room merely with her facial reactions to Michael speaking about Kay having a miscarriage. The confusion changing into disgust changing into utter contempt for Michael before telling him that he is so blind and that it was a boy and she had him killed because this must all end!
The scene when Kay tells Michael about the abortion is so very powerful. What she was telling him was that she killed a Corleone male. Michael's mind could not handle it. The stillness as his eyes boil with fury. Then he lashes out and explodes. So good. I miss that Al Pacino.
Don't forget, Michael is hard core, old school Catholic who are all very strong against ANY type of abortion for ANY reason. Still are today. In the 70s? That would have flipped his lid even worse that we see in the movie.
It's also one of the reasons why he pushes Tom Hagen aside. Tom arranged the abortion. He knew and lied about it. Michael could never forgive him doing that.
In the final few scenes I like to think of an old saying: "Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals." In the final flashback, Michael is shown to be the outsider of his family. Where they wanted to only protect their own, he wanted to protect the country. Where they idolized Vito as the Godfather, he viewed him as nothing more than a man. When they all leave, he stays behind to be alone. Michael's rise to power showed how he always felt alone, and he shared no real bond with the rest of his family like his father did. This was the real tragedy behind Michael.
That's an interesting way to think about Sonny's comment in that scene about country vs blood. I had always interpreted it as the conflict some Italian-Americans felt in WWII about the US getting involved in a war against Italy, and Sonny was mad at Michael because he felt like he was betraying the family for that reason.
@@michaelw8262 When sonny says blood he is referring the family because your blood is the ones that will remember you long after your country who you fought has forgotten.
What I noticed when rewatching The Godfather II, that Michael is very cold when talking with his father about the family's future business plans. It's a stark contrast to how Michael was when he saved Vito in the hospital. But at that time he was still a civilian. He has such cold eyes when talking to his papa about business.
In the unlikely event that someone has not already told you, Pacino and John Cazale (Fredo) did another movie together called Dog Day Afternoon...very much worth watching.
15:53:"That look" is probably my favourite scene in all of cinema, and only Heavens know how many movies I've seen in my life. The whole scene is haunting. Michael entering, Fredo slowly rising his head, they hold, Fredo cries, and then Michael looks Neri, and we know...
You got it, Cassie. This story is essentially Michael's Fall into Darkness. At the beginning of the story, he didn't want to join the Maffia. Then he became the lead of the Family. Then he becomes a monster. In his heart he loved Fredo but as a Boss of a group of the Maffia he could not lead it slide that Fredo betrayed the family. Cause then everybody would have had doubt about Michael's leadership. It's about intimidation and fear and doing a lot to stay on top. Being the biggest, badess, scariest.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business.
Except she said she cannot forgive Michael for hitting Kay - who literally murdered his innocent unborn son to keep him from being born. That's the real deeper layer here. Not only is Michael a monster, but so is Kay.
@@jw70467 No, Kay isn't a monster for making a decision she is well within her rights to make as it's her body and her choice. It's bizarre to see this kind of obviously-misogynistic equivalency between a mass-murdering mobster and a woman who had an abortion, assuming it was made by a thinking adult.
@@xzczcwc Yes, and her choice was to destroy a completely innocent life in order to hurt her husband, thats it, full stop, she even says so. It's not killing a whole bunch of people to be sure but its a damn shitty thing to do in its own right and hiding behind "hum dum her body, her choice" doesn't negate that.
Trust. Michael was all about trust throughout the movie (Roth, Pantangelli, Tom), and he was so caught up in it that he couldn't trust his brother even. Fredo broke it, and the Sicilian family doesn't forgive. Also, the senator you asked "does he have dirt on him?" was the guy in the hotel room with the dead girl. It really seemed you were super confused throughout, but another 6 or 7 dozen times watching it it'll all make sense.
Well, at least the old corrupt senator changed his mind about Italians in general. At the beginning of the movie, it is assumed, through his words, that he dislikes all Italians who make their fortune in America. At the end, he points to the Corleones as being the bad apples, because most Italians are true Americans.
Cinematic masterpiece. If your emotions are so twisted up, remember: this is a movie, and everything you see is acting. You get so immersed in the emotion because everything - from the acting to the costumes to the script to the cinematography - is flawless.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business. The character of Frank Pantangeli was originally supposed to be Clemenza, who was the old Godfather's oldest friend and the guy who introduced him to crime in the scenes when they are young (they steal the carpet together); in the first movie, Clemenza is the guy who supplies Michael with the fingerprint-proof gun he uses to kill the police captain and tells him that his father is proud of him. But the actor wasn't available, so they re-wrote the character into Frank. But the movie loses a lot with the re-write; if you imagine that the character is Clemenza, it makes his betrayal in this movie that much more powerful -- Michael has strayed so far from his father's values that he pushes out Tom Hagen, murders his own brother, and his father's oldest and most loyal friend turns against him and Michael forces him to take his own life. The change, though necessary, also interferes a bit with the symmetrical structure of the movie: the reason the movie cross-cuts between the past (the old don) and the present (Michael) is that each scene is supposed to contrast what the father stood for and what the son now stands for: every scene where the old don acts with honor and helps his family and friends (including Clemenza) is preceded and followed by a scene where Michael acts dishonorably and turns on his own friends and family. Even the last two scenes of the movie are a contrast: the flashback of the old don coming home to be greeted warmly by his family, and the final shot of Michael sitting alone on a bench, with no family or true friends.
The actor who portrayed Clemenza got a real lowball offer to reprise him for the second movie, the name of the actor escapes me at the moment and I'm too lazy to Google for it. The same thing happened in Part 3 with a well-known actor (I'm not going to spoil it for those that don't know)....but basically, the gist is that either Paramount and/or Francis Coppola are cheapskates
May I suggest reacting to The Conversation (1974). It was also directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and it stars Gene Hackman. It also has John Cazale, Robert Duvall, a young Harrison Ford, and the late Cindy Williams.
The reason Fredo wanted to take the boy fishing was because he knew Michael wouldn't kill him around the boy. So he knew when they called the boy away he wasn't coming back.
Nah, I don't think so. Fredo is a simple soul. Michael forgave him in front of everybody! It is heartbreaking to know he thought he was completely innocent again. Just uncle Fredo, playing with his nephew and giving him fishing lessons and what not. BANG BANG, you're dead!
This film has a lot of history in it. Early 1900s NYC, Ellis Island, The Cuban Revolution. Even the show that they watch in Cuba, the Superman show, was an actual sex show that used to play there before Fidel and company took over.
And don't forget the historical reality of the Senate hearings on the Mafia, televised live on several of the very few TV channels that existed back then.
19:21 Good eye, Cassie..Harry Dean Stanton before Aliens..And you saw him telling Bruce Banner, "Son, you got a condition" in the Avengers. Godfather 2's the only sequel to win the Oscar after winning for the first one.And both of 'em are on the AFI top 100 list. Loved your reactions!! (The flashbacks with Deniro were straight out of the book wrtten by Mario Puzo, word for word.)
Good job picking up on the nuanced role of the end scene. Also, notice when they’re all at the table, Michael is condemned and made to feel alone and left out. He was the black sheep of the family in this way. Fredo was painted as an outcast, but it was really Michael for me. So much to be said on the subject of becoming what you fear or swear off. These movies are an onion that one has to peel back the layers of. Great reaction. You’re one of my faves in the reaction world. Keep going!
Well, remember, the ending scene shows one more aspect about Michael which differed him from Vito. Vito lost his family as a little child, he treasured and protected that family his whole life. When he meets with the mob bosses after Tony is killed, he doesn't go to declare war but to surrender, in order to protect his family. He gives the other bosses what they want, in order to protect Michael and fredo and his grand children. He also knows those mob bosses will only honor this peace as long as vito is alive. in a way he painted the target onto him and took it off the rest of the family. Michael however, with his enlistment in the military "defied" the family vito struggled his whole life to build and protect. He was talking about grand ideals of country and liberty, but Sicilians think in terms of family first. And Michael stood out from the rest of them and was ostracized silently by them because his "values" were wrong as the family saw them. Country is fine and all, but its not more important then family. And this is what is his undoing in the series. Michael was valuing the "concept" over the "reality". He valued country over family, then when he became the head of the family he valued family (the crime family) over his own direct blood family. Every choice he made was to protect the family, sure, but in his mind the crime family came first, and his blood family second. It's what Tom laments about in the ending scene, how "family" doesn't mean the same thing anymore. And he's right. Vito would never have got it backwards like Michael does. to Michael, blood, friends, associates, even people he owes, who all should be close to him, are all second place to the "crime family". Heck, look at the move to vegas. Compare the lives of Vito and Michael. Vito lived in the neighborhood he was bleeding. He knew everyone who lived there. Michael however divorced the "Family" from the "neighborhood", and moved to vegas. He transformed the Cordileone Family from a mafia into a gang and it never occurred to him this is what he was doing. Michael's eyes were never set on home, and it was what undid him.
I love your reactions. Btw the cake in Cuba had a map of Cuba on it. The gangsters cutting it up symbolizes their taking over the island. The Cuba scenes were filmed in Dominican Republic where I lived in the 70s. One of the old cars belonged to a buddy of mine. As for the movie; Vito prioritized family. When Vito lost his job at the grocer, he still brought a pear home and loved how his wife appreciated this small gesture. Michael lost his way and prioritized power. He sacrificed his family for power.
I believe that Kate emphasized that the aborted child was a son in order to hurt Michael, and possibly because she didn't want a son following in his footsteps.
@@AudieHolland I don't think that was the point of the quote. I think they were just reiterating the "importance" of having a male be born in the family
I think the phrase you were looking for at the end is a "red herring". That is when you are shown or told something that you think is important but it turns out to be nothing. The other word you were looking for is "foreshadowing". Anyway, love your content and loved your reaction to this movie. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is great because Michael didn't want any part of this life but when things happened and he had to step up to protect his family, he did. This movie is all about the costs, even when you have good intentions early on, in the end you might end up doing things you would never imagine. Part III is good but not nearly as good as Parts I & II. Anyway, cheers to you and your family. I hope everyone is well.
I think you're right about the "red herring" but "red pigeon" was a decent try. For myself, I got it totally wrong, I thought she meant "MacGuffin" so I'm glad I read your comment, it makes more sense than what I thought and I'm metaphorically kicking myself for not getting it :-)
Another word for foreshadowing is “exposition”, though that’s slightly different. Exposition is dropping important information in front of the audience for use later. Back to the Future is a master class in exposition.
How much did Mama Corleone know? She knew a lot. In the book she went to church every day to pray for Vito's soul. In the book, Kay converted to Catholicism and started praying for Michael's soul. They shot a scene of Kay praying for the original movie but it was cut out of the finished film.
14:08 - And that's how Don Tommasino, the Sicilian mob boss who was hiding/protecting Michael during his exile in Sicily in "The Godfather", got to be confined to a wheelchair and a cane. Gotta love the attention to little details like that by Francis Ford Coppola.
I'm really loving your journey into classic movies. I am a 76 year old woman who grew up watching black and white movies and t.v. and I still enjoy them. I recently saw your review of Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart and so I recommend the movie To Have and Have Not. His co-star Lauren Bacall became his wife.
Fun fact: the ending flashback scene was supposed to include Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone but he was a no show to set. Francis Ford Coppola rewrote the entire the scene the day of.
I actually think it works even better without seeing him everyone else is out of the room and Michael is left alone then pans to him being alone again in the present
Brando was right not to turn up, it's more about the ghost of his legacy and him in his prime as a young man. Robert De Niro should be, and was, the only Vito in the film.
@@colliric There's footage (leaked out many years ago and was included with the Special Edition versions of the Trilogy) of Robert DeNiro reading and auditioning to play Michael Corleone in 1971. I'm glad things worked out the way they did for both Pacino and DeNiro. By 1974, DeNiro was already a known name with Mean Streets and his relationship with Marty Scorsese.
Many movies has intermission back through the50s to 80s because we had drive-in theaters where we can watch movies from our cars and they had intermission so we could go to the bathroom and the snack bar and get food, intermission was a lot of fun and extremely popular everyone would get out of their cars and mingle.
@@james_9920 I was born in 1955 and I spent many a Saturday night at the drive-in theater with the swings and the singer hotdogs and the concessions and piling people into the trunk of your car
@@Jim-pc5vz Well, I was born in 1954, and the intermissions weren't JUST for the drive-ins. Movie theaters used to be more like theaters for live plays, one giant auditorium instead of complexes of small movie theaters. So the movies were treated more like plays than they are today. For longer, more significant films, In addition to the intermission, they had overtures before the movie started and entr'acte music as people wandered back into the theater after intermissions. Such movies also often had exit music as people left.
The cake Michael & Hyman had on the balcony represented Cuba. They were cutting up and distributing the cake, while they were divvying up territory to do business in Havana.
When I was younger and watched this movie for the first time, I had a lot of trouble understanding it, especially the parts in Havanna, as I knew absolutely nothing about the revolution in Cuba back then. But even without that, I felt this movie had so much intricate shady business dealing and planning, and I felt immensely stupid for not understanding anything of it. Today I love the movie, but still prefer the first one, since it feels more streamlined and easy to understand even if you're not into mob stories, as well as Marlon Brando's iconic portrayal of Vito.
The symbolism for The Cake when they were in Cuba was supposed to be symbolic of how nefarious and unscrupulous businesses, local and foreign, were carving up Cuba at the time. This sort of naked corruption was part of the factors that lead to the numerous rebellions that engulfed the country until Fidel Castro took power. Plus it's a damn tasty looking cake.
The Godfather I and II are masterpieces. Vito Corleone is of course the Godfather. Every mob after has him depicted in the back of the creators head. "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse"...
About the "red herring": in Hollywood, there's a concept known as a "loose" or "tight" script. A "tight" script is one where every single line and every action drives the plot forward, while a "loose" one is where not all of the dialogue matters to the plot but helps to create atmosphere or show character or personality. Loose scripts tend to be slow burns. A good example of a "tight" script is "Back to the Future", which is taught in film schools as an example of a perfectly tight script where literally every sentence is necessary to the plot. "The Godfather" and GF part 2 are loose scripts where not every line matters to the story and a lot of the dialogue is there to show relationships or personality or create ambience. A lot of older movies are loose (and longer), but most modern movies are tighter (and shorter), which is a reflection of modern tastes, but I personally think that you lose a lot of atmosphere and suspense when you make scripts tighter. A good example of a modern "loose" script that you liked, Cassie, was the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which had tons of dialogue that had nothing to do with the plot but helped immerse you in the universe.
The phrases you’re probably thinking of are- “Chekhov’s Gun” - which is a storytelling rule that states that if you have a gun hanging on the wall in the beginning of your story, then by the end someone must use it.- and “Red Herring” - which is a general phrase that refers to a false lead, or in storytelling, something that is used to draw attention away from whatever the author wants kept mysterious. Great reaction! Thank you for sacrificing your happy disposition, this is tough one, but necessarily cautionary.❤
Never Go Against The Family - Coppola's Greek tragedy merging with the curdled American Dream is an undisputed masterpiece. *Red herring is the term you are looking for when a director pulls a bait and switch or focuses on something which in fact is not important - pretty much 'the old shell game'. You can skip pt. III - trust me.
If you watch Part 3, make sure you you watch the most recent edit, titled "The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone". The original edit kind of sucked and IMHO didn't live up to the first two movies. The new version was fixed by the director by switching a few things around. Thanks for choosing these great movies...I enjoyed seeing them again.
Nah your assessment was spot on in my eyes. As dark and morbid as the film is at times, it's a fascinating character study watching the transition Mike goes through and how it affects those around him and his business affairs. As well as the parallels between his approach to being the Don and his father's. It is a bit heartbreaking to see Mike become so cold, distrusting, and unreasonable, especially since it was such a stark contrast from his father. I always felt that dynamic was at the heart of both films. Glad you liked both, I know you're partial to more lighthearted themes.
At the end of Part II, we see Michael sitting alone in his armchair. He has defeated all of his enemies, but he has lost everyone he has ever cared about as a result: Sonny, Apollonia, Vito, Mama, Kay, Fredo. All of them are dead or have abandoned him.
@@cml6581 How do you know that? Because of the third movie I bet. Do you really think Connie would ever forgive Michael for killing their own flesh and blood, Fredo? At the end of The Godfather II, *everyone* has abandoned Michael. But because some executives thoughts we needed a 'part 3,' some relationships were resurrected I guess.
6:39 This sequence in the film depicts a Congressional hearing into organized crime. It’s intended to evoke the memory of the United States Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce, which was a special committee of the United States Senate which existed from 1950 to 1951 and which investigated organized crime which crossed state borders in the United States. The committee became popularly known as the Kefauver Committee because of its chairman, Senator Estes Kefauver. (The hearings are alternately known as the Kefauver Hearings.) The term “capo di tutti capi” (boss of all bosses) was first introduced to the general U.S. public by the Kefauver Commission. Organized crime was the subject of a large number of widely read articles in several major newspapers and magazines in 1949. Several local "crime commissions" in major cities and states had also uncovered extensive corruption of the political process by organized crime. Many cities and states called for federal help in dealing with organized crime, yet federal law provided few tools for the U.S. government to do so. In particular, many cities and states were concerned with the way organized crime had infiltrated interstate commerce, and how it threatened to hold the American economy hostage through labor racketeering. On January 5, 1950, Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tennessee) introduced a resolution that would allow the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to investigate organized crime's role in interstate commerce. However, the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce already claimed jurisdiction over the issue. A compromise resolution was substituted which established a special committee of five Senators, whose membership would be drawn from both the Judiciary and Commerce committees. Debate over the substitute resolution was bitter and partisan, and the voting on the resolution extremely close. On May 3, 1950, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, sitting in his role as President of the United States Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote, and the Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce was established. The television broadcast of the committee's hearings attracted huge public interest and educated a broad audience about the issues of municipal corruption and organized crime. An estimated 30 million people in the United States tuned in to watch the live proceedings in March 1951 and at the time 72 percent of the population were familiar with the committee's work. The tremendous success of the broadcast led to the production of a cycle of "exposé" crime films dealing with the dismantling of complex criminal organizations by law enforcement. The first one of these was THE CAPTIVE CITY (1952), which had the blessing of Senator Kefauver himself: Director Robert Wise took a print of the film to D.C. to show the senator, who not only endorsed it but even appears in the prologue and epilogue, cautioning audiences about the evils of organized crime. Other notable examples of exposé films inspired by the hearings include HOODLUM EMPIRE (1952) and THE TURNING POINT (1952).
I love the entire Godfather series. The first two movies are masterpieces. The Godfather III gets hated on alot, but I have always loved Al Pacino's performance in that movie. It is definitely worth the watch.
Robert Duval's refusal to come back for Part 3 and Wynona Ryder backing out of her role and having Sophia Coppolla( who clearly couldn't act )take over her part really doomed that movie
@@harryballsak1123 I have the directors cut in my 4k UHD BluRay pack I have yet to sit down and watch it....... but jeeze Sophia Coppolla just made me cringe every time she talked in that movie.
What's the opposite of a Rom Com? Yep, you guessed it. A sweeping epic movie. Michael couldn't do what his father did and keep his family together. Like the first movie, many of the scenes were based on events in history. Hyman Roth was a stand-in for Meyer Lansky, who worked with the mob to bring casinos and gambling to Cuba until Castro took over. The Senate hearings mirrored the Kefauver Hearings on organized crime. Coppola did an amazing job on I and II. Great films. Thanks for reacting. I know it's not your cup of tea so appreciate the video.
@24:08 When you show something early in a movie and later is becomes important, that's what is known as a Chekov's Rifle. If it turns out not to be important, it's called a Red Herring.
"Red Pigeon" --- now that was really funny!!! LOL. I think you are referring to a RED HERRING (I like this definition: "Red Herring: This is a prominently placed clue that leads nowhere, used as misdirection in order to fool viewers into falling for a “twist”.") Also, there is a plot device known as a MacGuffin. Again, a good definition: "This is slightly different from a red herring, in that a MacGuffin is integral to advancing the plot, through character motivation, and yet its significance is never revealed to the viewers. The term was popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, and he used it often in his films." The statue of the falcon in the film "The Maltese Falcon" is a MacGuffin.
I think this famous quote is the movies' point: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" I think you got this point from your comments at the end of the video.
Especially since Francis Ford Coppola was George Lucas' mentor, whatever one may think of the Star Wars prequels, it's difficult for me not to see the parallels between Michael Corleone and Anakin Skywalker... wide-eyed idealists who gradually turn to the "dark side." Revenge of the Sith in particular drove this home in the "Order 66" sequence, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the Christening scene in the first film, and what we see in Part II with the fates of Roth, Pentangeli, and Fredo. I do hope you watch Godfather III eventually. A lot of people diss it, I think in part because it followed up two Academy Award winners. But I will always defend it as an appropriate wrap-up to Michael's story. It certainly turned out much better than the many ideas that floated around in the 16 years it took to make a third film (many of which sounded like watered-down Scarface knockoffs). Whatever the case, albeit reluctantly, Coppola took Puzo's potboiler novel and turned it into three Shakespearean epics. If you enjoyed the dynamic between Al Pacino and John Cazale, I would also recommend Dog Day Afternoon. Released a year after Godfather II, it's about an "everyday" bank robbery in New York that went completely off the rails. And while it's based on a real-life story, it also has a number of absurdly comic moments, with Pacino's and Cazale's characters finding themselves way out of their depth.
The Godfather should've stayed a duology, rather than a trilogy. The ending of part 2 was perfection. We didn't need to know anymore, especially when the "more" wasn't on the same level of storytelling as parts 1 & 2.
Michael never loved his brother Fredo, he viewed him as a weak link and a liability to the Family. In Part III, he breaks down crying about how he had Fredo murdered. But even then, he cries that he killed "my father's son". Fredo only ever meant anything to Michael as an extension of his father Vito, but not as a brother. Michael was as cold as ice, but he revered his father. The Godfather is a story of an aging King with three sons vying for the throne. Each son represents a facet of the King's personality - the brute, the thinker, and the child. But the most cunning one triumphs in the end. And that is exactly what Vito didn't want. He believed Michael was destined for better things
@thomast8539 By that faulty logic, he should have killed Kay for "murdering" his child, which hurt him more deeply than anything in the story. But no, he didn't. Not only did he not love Fredo, he also never respected Fredo. His kind gestures to him were purely obligatory until he had reached his threshold. Godfather III really drives the point home, he respected Sonny and Tom, but Fredo was just his screw-up embarrassment of an older brother
The juxtaposition of Michael's life with his father's life and rise to crime is brilliantly done. And the way events correlate with each other in an uncanny way across time.
The gold telephone was a historical gift from ITT but it wasn't important for the movie, it was the people who were attending that meeting that were important. I used to think when they listed all the companies attending: Ah, respectable businesses *and then* we see Michael Corleone, the Mafia Don from NYC! But later I learned that those companies were supporting Batista, a bloody military dictator so they could exploit Cuba for profits, so I was then thinking: Look at all those corrupt evil multinational companies, and there's Michael Corleone, our 'independent businessman' from NYC! The cake, I presume you meant the cake presented on behalf of Roth and then cut into pieces and divided among the companions. It was a cake with Cuba on it, it was a blatant symbol of how they cut up Cuba amongst themselves.
I absolutely, 100 percent agree with you, Cassie. Any movie longer than two hours should have an intermission in it, at least in the theatrical release, so you can get up and go to the bathroom without missing any of the movie.
One of my favorite underrated parts of this film is when Michael gives Neri the order to kill Fredo. Specifically, the reluctant expression on Neri’s face coupled with the solemn nod that says, “I’ll do it, but I won’t enjoy it.”
I need to watch it again, cuz I always interpreted it another way. That with the hug he was forgiving Fredo. Then looked up, saw Neri's face of let down and shame. So then Michael has it done.
@@philmullineaux5405 Your interpretation is very unique. My take was similar to Corp's above. Michael was only giving the impression of forgiving Fredo to appease Connie and give Fredo the belief that he was forgiven. The look to Neri from Michael was most definitely one of "this man still has to die for his sins against the family and as your Godfather, I am asking you to do it". Then, Neri, reluctantly performs this task because Michael believes that it needs to be done to "balance the books".
@@Nimzzeee Or even before then? Perhaps his conversation with her simply confirmed his mindset. He listened to his mother, but disagreed with her at the same time, fulling knowing that his family was disintigrating in spite of his efforts. Michael was extremely intelligent. Deep forethought and strong planning of his actions was key to his ability to remain alive.
The guy in the court room with the moustache who was on the stand (at 2:26) was Sylvester Stallone's boss in Rocky 1. Rocky collected money for him. He was the lone-shark. He was also the "maniac" in the horror movie "Maniac" (1980).
Thanks for another great reaction. The contrast between Vito creating a happy life for his family and Michael losing his family is indeed a tragedy and devastating. I would highly recommend watching the Godfather part 3, since we do see Michael’s son, Anthony, and Michael’s daughter, Mary, as well. However, please watch and react to the director’s cut: Godfather Coda: Death of Michael Corleone. Much better than the theatrical version.
Congrats. You have now watched the greatest movie in the history of American cinema, and you will understand so, so many references that you didn't understand before. Particularly in movies, but also in our culture in general.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but Hyman Roth we played by Lee Strasberg, who became famous not as an actor, but as an acting teacher. Through the Actors Studio, he became the godfather (?) of “method acting”, with both Pacino and De Niro among his many students.
Apparently 2 of those things were totally acceptable and Michael had absolutely no reason to want revenge. Apparently an act of betrayal shows how much they loved and respected him.
What you were alluding to at the end when you were trying to remember the term for when a movie shows something that is going to be important later, I believe that is called "Chekov's gun". The colourful term you almost recalled is "Red herring", which you rightfully surmised as the opposite. Red herrings are especially used in mysteries, to purposefully hint at an innocent character as a suspect to intentionally throw the viewer or reader off the real culprits.
It's a good movie, but it doesn't feel like Godfather. It has a very noticable tone and pacing change, along with very... questionable choices to say the least.
The story of Michael Corleone is akin to a Shakespearean tragedy. The one thing the protagonist worries about the most (i.e. losing his family) he causes to happen through his own actions, eventually leading to his own downfall. That final dinner table scene is just brilliant. No one else but Michael is sitting on his side of the table. This symbolizes how Michael's decisions have always left him isolated from the rest of his kin. Also note the sad irony that the only family member willing to show support in that moment is Fredo. Michael didn't just have his brother killed. Michael executed his own soul.
Last scene - Fredo is the only one that supported Michael. Fredo was also the one that Michael could trust getting deep with people -- though Fredo only saw it as "entertaining" them and being superficial.
Fredo did something that was unforgivable there would be no reconcilation for what he did rather he intended for it to happen or not he violated the trust and safety of Michaels family and it almost cost him, his wife and unborn child their lives its no coming back from that. No man put no one above his wife and children brother or no brother Fredo had to go he would forever be liability to the family as a whole if Michael let him live.
Рік тому+1
1:45 Lol 😂, “intermission” is for people take a walk out of the theater, get a smoke, buy more popcorn & refreshments, and go to the bathroom, then back inside to the movie. It would be the same for the likes of _Gone With The Wind_ or _Space Odyssey_ .
Intermissions were a standard part of big budget movies in the sixties and seventies, and earlier, a part of all movies. People dressed up a bit to go to the movies, and they chatted about the movie, ate their food in the foyer, and came back to the movie all refreshed and pumped up. It was kinda nice, unlike now when you're distracted by the sound of people munching food (and food smells) and talking about what's going on.
Part III is worth watching. It's like the Jedi to Part II's Empire. Weakest of the trilogy, but not BAD. But I think you should watch the "Coda" version Coppola put out a couple years ago. It's just edited in a way that's easier to follow and flows more like the first two. But it's worth seeing at least once.
9:53 The man playing this Senator is film producer Roger Corman, who also made a brief appearance as a Senator in an early scene in APOLLO 13 (1995). He was responsible for giving many film directors (as well as writers, actors, and other positions) their first break in movies in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s & 1980s, with numerous low budget films, some of which are famous in their own right. He gave Francis Ford Coppola, who he initially hired as an assistant in 1962, his first break as a feature film director by producing the film DEMENTIA 13 (1963). Coppola basically cast Corman in this scene as a little “thank you” for being so instrumental in his success. Similarly, Corman gave Ron Howard, who had grown up in film and television as a child actor, his first break as a film director, and Howard put him in APOLLO 13 (1995) in the same manner. Corman also mentored and gave breaks to such directors as Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Peter Bogdanovich, Joe Dante, John Sayles, and James Cameron, and actors like Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Bruce Dern, Diane Ladd, and William Shatner. He’s still alive as of this writing, at 96 years old!
I made the mistake of reading the book first. I was upset when I saw the original because it left out so much. This was before I realized that books are the authors vision and movies are the directors vision of the same story. I highly recommend you read the book. It’s so good! Of course I now enjoy both of these movies because it tells the whole family story.
14:05 Vito’s friend who was kneecapped by the shotgun was Don Tomassino, the man who took care of Michael when he fled to Sicily after killing Sollozzo and McClusky in the first movie.
Boy I never really realized before but - Kaye is extraordinarily brave and (arguably) very moral. To deny the evil of the gangster empire. She’s the only one who did.
If you watch part 3, do not, I repeat, do not watch the one called CODA: the death of Michael Corleone. The best version is simply titled The Godfather Part III
Just remember the sequence with the little Italian landlord who stammers his way out of Corleone's olive oil business after finding out exactly who he'd been rude and abrupt to over the widow with the dog. "The rent-a stays-a like-a before!"
Though I think Chinatown should have won the Best Picture Oscar for 1974, there is no denying the greatness of Gf 2. I still prefer 1 because it is more straightforward than 2; 2 is a touch convoluted at times. However, the flashback scene and close-up of Michael that end 2 are as good as movies get. As for Michael killing Fredo, I suppose it was necessary to mirror the ending of 1 with all the murders of the 5 families. I'm not saying it was artificial because of that because it is believable that Michael would have murdered almost anyone at that point. It isn't in the film, but I've always thought a part of Michael resented Fredo for being weak and stupid. If Fredo weren't those things, he could have taken over after Sonny's death and Michael could have pursued the sorts of things his father wanted for him. On the other hand, another part of Michael clearly wanted to be the top man even before Sonny was killed.
@@richardmcelheney6430 Yes, indeed. I posted in reply to you all the nominees for best picture from 71 to 77 with some brief comments and it was deleted three times. No idea why.
Fredo betrayed the Family. More than once but the last one put Michael and his kids at risk of death, he had to be dealt with. Michael showed restraint waiting until after Mama died.
I think the plot device you were thinking of is called a "McGuffin". Regarding Kay's motivation... She felt the Sicilian "thing" (Cosa Nostra), the blood feuds, violence and murder needed to end . It's not that Michael would love a daughter less than a son, it's that a son would be another person to carry on the Corleone name and have a place in the leadership of the family. Then there's the irony of Cosa Nostra usually being devout Catholics while committing atrocities in the name of business (remember the baptism scene in the first film). She knew there was no way Michael could forgive an abortion.
![[1/2] THE GODFATHER PART II | FIRST TIME WATCHING | MOVIE REACTION](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NE4bdme-UPY/mqdefault.jpg)
At the end of Godfather 1, the audience was cheering and happy because Michael "won." Even though Michael's triumph came because he had a bunch of people murdered all at once. The director, Francis Coppola, was dismayed because the audience didn't seem to understand that the first movie was a tragic story about how a good young man turned into a monster. So when it came time to do the sequel, Coppola wanted to make absolutely certain the audience would know Michael had turned into a monster. He would leave no doubt. It's a very tragic story, and Michael is one of the greatest tragic characters in cinematic history -- precisely because he started out as such a good, idealistic young man who wanted nothing to do with the family business.
The first time Michael commits murder, it is for the best possible motive. To save his father's life. Sollozzo and that cop were determined to kill Vito. It seems justifiable that Michael should kill them. But it starts Michael down a dark path that ultimately leads to this.
They also overlook that Vito is also a monster. The horse head was him. The band leader was him. The revenge at the end was planned by Michael and him. It was delayed till after he died so he could keep his word.
It reminds me a lot of the Dune books by Frank Herbert. Minor spoilers ahead, but the first book is a deconstruction of the hero's journey and why charismatic leaders may do terrible things with the best intentions. However, a lot of people didn't get that and viewed it as a straight good guy beats bad guy adventure tale so Herbert wrote a sequel, Dune Messiah, where Paul literally says, "You know there used to be these historical figures named Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler and I'm a worse mass murderer than either of those people."
People cheered because it was an "honorable thief" stopping drug dealers. The war on drugs has really quieted down in recent years, but in the '70s it was everywhere. A fifth of my graduating class died before they could attend graduation, and all of it traced back to drugs. People wanted something done legal or not. No surprise vigilante movies took off at this same time.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
@@dannyheel1 Agreed. Vito is the "good" mobster, but he's still a mobster who has people killed and rules by using violence. Some people like to romanticize the mob, and I think this movie is Coppola's rebuttal.
Pacino's rising wrath as Kay told him the truth, and his explosion of violence when she finished, was the most convincing acting I've ever seen.
Another great Pacino performance is Dog Day afternoon. He's being torn in a bunch of different directions and he gets on the phone with his wife. He's completely spent and you see his range of emotions change in that scene from having things together to completely lost in about 10 minutes. It's a long passage of just him on the phone with a lot of dialog. Sidney Lumet made him do a whole other take of it after he nailed it the 1st time. The exhaustion that Pacino's character and Pacino himself had is completely genuine. A master performance! It's one of my favorite films!
And, to underscore the importance of costume design, I want to point out the suit Pacino is wearing in DDA. It’s purposefully at least 2 sizes too big; Pacino’s disheveled appearance is an extension of his disheveled mind and actions. Brilliant!
@@Divamarja_CA YES!!! Great observation! So glad others recognize some of the greatness in DDA!! Thanks for the comment!
If your a fan of DDA I highly recommend to everybody the documentary of the real story called behind the film called : The Dog. It's about the real guy that Pacino played and it's fascinating! The real guy is quite the character!!!! It's even stranger than what Pacino played in the movie. It really compliments the movie! It's on UA-cam here : ua-cam.com/video/Jgj55GgVAmU/v-deo.html
@@kowalski3769 I loved his character as Scarface
Pacino is so good when screaming. His rage at Kay for the abortion was terrifying.
Nah man, it was his *eyes.* Anyone can yell or scream, but it's the feral look in his eyes that truly terrifying. That look of pure hate and rage for what she did.
That is what was terrifying.
I genuinely believed that he was gonna kill her with his bare hands in that moment. Not just Michael & Kay, but Al and Diane x_x
@@Crispifordthe3rd515 If anyone in real life looks at you like that, run for your life
The rage in his face before he starts screaming while Kay keeps rambling might be the single best acted scenes I've ever seen
Masterful acting.
The ending sequence is so good, especially when you forget how different Michael was. Despite all the power he achieved, he found himself exactly where he was before: alone.
It crushed me when I saw Fredo was the only one to give Michael any words of encouragement for joining the military.
the whole thing is boring af. i dont know how people actually like this snoozefest
It's one of the best tragedies in literature. It's a masterclass on how to write a "Fall from Grace" story. It uses a lot of subtext, characters don't always announce how they feel. So when the confrontation arrives (Michael and Fredo, Michael and Kay), it's like an eruption of pent up emotions. That's why the dialogue feels realistic, because humans are typically like that.
@@One.Zero.One101 it's boring af
And they rewrote that scene on the fly, as I understand it. Marlon Brando was supposed to be in it, but on the day of the shoot, he just didn't bother to show up.
The movie contrasts Vito and Michael. Both didn't plan to be mob heads. Vito became one out of necessity, but he slipped into the role with a certain guile and charm; he became comfortable with who he was as the 'Godfather'. Michael also became one out of necessity to protect his father, but as he grew more and more powerful, he ended up forgetting what was most important to him which was his family. And the more power he got, the more his grasp on his family slipped (mostly because of his methods to gain more power) and the more miserable he became.
It reminds me of Sonny's quote in "A Bronx Tale" where he's asked if it's better to be loved or feared. He replies it's best to have both but if you have to pick one then fear because it will keep people loyal. Vito was loved and feared but Michael was only feared.
The road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Michael's journey starts with seeking security for his family but the more security he garners the farther his family gets from him. Michael is simply too cunning for his own good and it costs him his humanity.
Nope.
That's the popular fiction, but the whole point of making it generational was that Michael is just playing out Vito's choices. The symbol in the title image is a set of puppet strings, but they are placed to that the word "Godfather" is on the strings. Vito and Michael are puppets of the system, and they let those strings attach to themselves in their pride and ego and greed. Vito could have accepted that paying off Fanucci is the price of doing business. Heck, he could have been satisfied with making excuses as he does with Fanucci, and chiseling down the payoff. But the way he wipes his cheek where Fanucci touched him shows his ego and resentment. The murder was purely out of pride and greed. His family was not going to starve, and Fanucci indicated he'd be willing to make VIto a part of his crew with more chances to profit off their association.
Vito's money in the first movie has come from being Fanucci on a bigger scale. He leans on ordinary people, poor people, both hard-working normal guys and petty crooks, even those who only do it to feed their families. He takes a percentage of their income, and in exchange, he does not brutalize or murder them. Vito makes a big show of doing favors and "protecting" his people, but it's done for the same reason a business owner buys an alarm system and security cameras - to protect his source of profit.
When Vito loses his job, it is so Fanucci can take care of his own friends and family, by giving someone Vito's job. But years later, he is doing the same thing to some other actor who was going to be cast in Jack Woltz's picture. When Tom Hagen goes out to talk to Woltz, it is a week before production. You better believe that role was cast. Maybe that role was going to be the actor's big break, get him noticed and rich and famous and let him buy his parents a nice house and send his kids to college ... but he loses the role, because Vito wants to give his godson a job.
@@larrybremer4930 Yes, and Vito is the one who started the Corleone family down that road. His embrace of violence to get wealthy turned his sons into criminals. Two of his sons were violent murderer and his other son and son-in-law betrayed his family out of greed or resentment. If Vito does not embrace the cycle of violence, Sonny and Michael don't necessarily get on board with him. If Vito had been a laborer or worked in a grocery store, Fredo & Carlo never feel entitled to more than their already affluent lifestyles, motivating them to sell out to Barzini and Roth.
that last shot of Michael sitting among the autumn leaves contemplating his sins - always so powerful to me
You have to wonder - is he contemplating his sins or planning his next move? Remember his reaction to Tom when Tom suggests he's already won, you want to wipe everyone out?
@@joe6096 I don't think so. The point is that he's already won. He's beat everyone. I don't think there's anything else for him to plan at this point
@@errwhattheflip It's supposedly all for family, but half of his family is dead. He is pretty much alone. Almost everyone in the final scene is dead. The pursuit of their dream on behalf of family is a farce.
@@joe6096 Just his enemies lol
I admit I had to watch this 2-3 times before it occurred to me that the guy who got shot in the legs when Vito went back to Sicily to kill the man who killed his family was the SAME GUY in the wheel chair who looked after Michael after he killed the police captain and Solozzo. I like it that they expected people to see this for themselves, instead of explicitly showing it and making it easy to realize.
How could you forget about Don Tommasino! Mama Mia!
@@lewstone5430 I tend to "glance over" foreign names of minor characters. Without the name, all you know is there's a guy in Sicily in a wheel chair, and in a flashback we see a guy in Sicily apparently shot is such a way that his legs go out from under him.
@@GetMeThere1 hes also the guy in the casket that Michael goes to visit in GF3.
I'm just learning this myself, that's whack.
I’m still processing what you just said. I have to go back and watch. Wow.
I love Diane Keaton's silent acting in the senate hearing scene, when Michael is asked about the murder of the police captain, and it slowly dawns on her why Michael had to suddenly leave the country.
I never noticed that
Damn, you are now making me re-check that scene, never watched Kay's reaction.
The movie is full of those great moments. The glance Roth gives to Michael during the golden telephone scene is another one
@@tobe1207 neither did i
That's part of what makes GFII that rare feat of being a movie sequel equal to or better than the first. After GFII came out, you had to watch them both back to back to get the full picture.
Unfortunately that wouldn't be possible for at least another 5-6 years until the release of the home VCR in the late 70s lol
"Maybe they should go to counselling." That had me cracking up laughing.
"Michael, Kay's told me about some of your issues. Do you feel that you're presently dealing with your anger in a constructive way?"
...
"I do"
I feel you Cassie. Too bad they couldn't listen.
"Well, my wife doesn't understand the pressures on me as a mob boss…"
Where is Dr. Melfi when you need her?
Cassie might not get the reference here, it's the Sopranos, that centers in part around a mobster in counseling, if she was wondering. Good catch :D
I highly recommend reading about John Cazale, who played Fredo Corleone. He sadly passed away from lung cancer at 42, but left an amazing acting legacy.
Also, the story of his partnership with the woman he loved (who devoted the last nine months of his life nursing him) is also well worth reading. Her name is Meryl Streep.
If I'm not mistaken every screen role Cazale played got him nominated for an Academy Award ...and he never once starred. Another actor that radiates through the role and keeps your eye riveted. He owns every scene he's in
Every film he was in got nominated for best picture.
@@davehoward22 Every film he starred in would later be selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry of the Library of Congress.
@@davehoward22 yes, 5 movies I think
If memory serves me he did 5 movies. Godfather I, Godfather II, The Deer Hunter and Dog Day Afternoon all become hits and classics. The fifth I can't remember. He was also involved heavily or engaged to Meryl Streep and died after The Deer Hunter.
I love how the flashbacks are all focused on the building of a family, and the present is about it's destruction.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business.
It's the contrast of the rise of the father, and the (moral) fall of the son.
It’s so different from the first film and totally stands on its own. A masterpiece.
Yes, Fredo ran because he knew what Michael's kiss on the mouth meant. The kiss of death. Not as chilling as "Fredo, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend," but the die was cast with the kiss. After all, it was the second time that Fredo had gone against the Family (first was with Mo Greene).
The flashbacks were my favorite part of the movie too, not only because Vito has such a fascinating story but because we see that along with all of the cold, calculating brutality he was also a very kind, loving soul. And you see that as much as Michael may have inherited those first qualities from his father, he was sorrily lacking when it came to those latter qualities.
The reason the movie cross-cuts between the past (the old don) and the present (Michael) is that each scene is supposed to contrast what the father stood for and what the son now stands for: every scene where the old don acts with honor and helps his family and friends (including Clemenza) is preceded and followed by a scene where Michael acts dishonorably and turns on his own friends and family. Even the last two scenes of the movie are a contrast: the flashback of the old don coming home to be greeted warmly by his family, and the final shot of Michael sitting alone on a bench, with no family or true friends.
"Wait, don't you do it.. It ends like that? It ends so bleak and sad and everyone looks sad and everyone's mean and everyone's dead?" Perfect reaction dude. Some of us love movies like that haha.
Hilarious!
Good thing this was the last Godfather movie. :P
Welcome to European Cinema.
Yeah I know The Godfather is American but the typical American movie has a happy ending.
European movies may have happy endings because it would be absurd to have a comedy end in tragedy. Although there are some tragicomedies.
But with most European movies, characters who survive till the end are usally sadder but wiser.
Or everybody dies! (Hamlet by W. Shakespeare and a few other tragedies he wrote).
That final shot is so haunting. It makes you think the whole movie, or even both movies, were him sitting in that chair years later ruminating on how he threw away his family.
It was a combustible combination -
Some of you are acting like it's all Michael's fault -
The difference between Pop and Michael is pop had a wife to help him keep the family together -
Michael had a wife who turned against him -
You are saying Mike "threw away " his family....
Uhhhh reality is - Kay literally violently destroyed part of the family - she aborted the baby. That was HER decision...
But you can't blame her huh?
Why?? BC she's a woman??
So it's ok for a woman to kill a baby... but its not ok for Michael to have people killed...??
WHich one's more innocent? The unborn baby....
Or the twisted sick adults michael has killed?
The moral calculus isn't that simple:
Life is often not like the movies : There's gray area..... people aren't all great or all bad. Not black and white.
Kay isn't all innocent. And Michael isn't a complete monster.
It's not that black and white.
The acting between Diane Keaton and Al Pacino during that fight was truly phenomenal
They were dating during the filming of the movie.
They were a couple throughout the 1980s but broke up during the 1990s when Diane demanded they get married at last but Al refused.
Despite that, they remained good friends.
John Cazale, who played Fredo, appeared in only six films before he died of lung cancer. All six films were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. They were -- The Godfather, The Conversation, GF 2, Dog Day Afternoon, The Deer Hunter (his last film) and GF 3 (posthumous archive footage.) Three of them won - GF 1 and 2 and Deer Hunter. An extraordinary actor.
John Cazale was Meryl Streep’s boyfriend at the time.
It was at the point where you said “maybe they should go to counseling” that I remembered why I love this channel so much.
which one is Will?
"And how did the abortion make you feel, Michael?"
I love the way you released these, Part 2 minutes after Part 1, Thank You.
Michael’s fall to darkness juxtaposed with Vito’s rise is absolutely brilliant and Michael’s abortion rage is some of the greatest acting I’ve ever seen his eyes are piercing through her
Both parts same day?! *Thank you!* Can’t wait, Cassie!
Diane Keaton does a spectacular acting job in the hotel room merely with her facial reactions to Michael speaking about Kay having a miscarriage. The confusion changing into disgust changing into utter contempt for Michael before telling him that he is so blind and that it was a boy and she had him killed because this must all end!
The scene when Kay tells Michael about the abortion is so very powerful. What she was telling him was that she killed a Corleone male. Michael's mind could not handle it. The stillness as his eyes boil with fury. Then he lashes out and explodes. So good. I miss that Al Pacino.
Don't forget, Michael is hard core, old school Catholic who are all very strong against ANY type of abortion for ANY reason. Still are today. In the 70s? That would have flipped his lid even worse that we see in the movie.
@@joe6096 catholics are against killing of any kind yet he engineered plenty murders
@@joe6096 I mean, the reason she did it is very controversial even today. And the way she told him seemed like she did it to hurt him
It's also one of the reasons why he pushes Tom Hagen aside. Tom arranged the abortion. He knew and lied about it. Michael could never forgive him doing that.
In the final few scenes I like to think of an old saying: "Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals."
In the final flashback, Michael is shown to be the outsider of his family. Where they wanted to only protect their own, he wanted to protect the country. Where they idolized Vito as the Godfather, he viewed him as nothing more than a man. When they all leave, he stays behind to be alone. Michael's rise to power showed how he always felt alone, and he shared no real bond with the rest of his family like his father did. This was the real tragedy behind Michael.
That's an interesting way to think about Sonny's comment in that scene about country vs blood. I had always interpreted it as the conflict some Italian-Americans felt in WWII about the US getting involved in a war against Italy, and Sonny was mad at Michael because he felt like he was betraying the family for that reason.
@@michaelw8262 When sonny says blood he is referring the family because your blood is the ones that will remember you long after your country who you fought has forgotten.
What I noticed when rewatching The Godfather II, that Michael is very cold when talking with his father about the family's future business plans.
It's a stark contrast to how Michael was when he saved Vito in the hospital. But at that time he was still a civilian.
He has such cold eyes when talking to his papa about business.
In the unlikely event that someone has not already told you, Pacino and John Cazale (Fredo) did another movie together called Dog Day Afternoon...very much worth watching.
Attica ! Attica !
Watch out for the cyborg
BISHOP
15:53:"That look" is probably my favourite scene in all of cinema, and only Heavens know how many movies I've seen in my life. The whole scene is haunting. Michael entering, Fredo slowly rising his head, they hold, Fredo cries, and then Michael looks Neri, and we know...
I was thinking about how Michael is looking into the distance at the end. The stare.
You got it, Cassie. This story is essentially Michael's Fall into Darkness. At the beginning of the story, he didn't want to join the Maffia. Then he became the lead of the Family. Then he becomes a monster. In his heart he loved Fredo but as a Boss of a group of the Maffia he could not lead it slide that Fredo betrayed the family. Cause then everybody would have had doubt about Michael's leadership. It's about intimidation and fear and doing a lot to stay on top. Being the biggest, badess, scariest.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business.
Except she said she cannot forgive Michael for hitting Kay - who literally murdered his innocent unborn son to keep him from being born. That's the real deeper layer here. Not only is Michael a monster, but so is Kay.
@@jw70467 No, Kay isn't a monster for making a decision she is well within her rights to make as it's her body and her choice. It's bizarre to see this kind of obviously-misogynistic equivalency between a mass-murdering mobster and a woman who had an abortion, assuming it was made by a thinking adult.
@@xzczcwc Yes, and her choice was to destroy a completely innocent life in order to hurt her husband, thats it, full stop, she even says so.
It's not killing a whole bunch of people to be sure but its a damn shitty thing to do in its own right and hiding behind "hum dum her body, her choice" doesn't negate that.
@@xzczcwc Killing an innocent unborn human life, especially as its mother, is far worse than killing other violent criminals.
Trust. Michael was all about trust throughout the movie (Roth, Pantangelli, Tom), and he was so caught up in it that he couldn't trust his brother even. Fredo broke it, and the Sicilian family doesn't forgive. Also, the senator you asked "does he have dirt on him?" was the guy in the hotel room with the dead girl. It really seemed you were super confused throughout, but another 6 or 7 dozen times watching it it'll all make sense.
It's a movie you definitely need & should watch more than 6 or 7 dozen times. 😊
Well, at least the old corrupt senator changed his mind about Italians in general.
At the beginning of the movie, it is assumed, through his words, that he dislikes all Italians who make their fortune in America.
At the end, he points to the Corleones as being the bad apples, because most Italians are true Americans.
Cinematic masterpiece. If your emotions are so twisted up, remember: this is a movie, and everything you see is acting. You get so immersed in the emotion because everything - from the acting to the costumes to the script to the cinematography - is flawless.
The old don always said that he entered the Mafia business in order to provide his family and "a man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man"; Michael destroys his own family in order to expand the business.
The character of Frank Pantangeli was originally supposed to be Clemenza, who was the old Godfather's oldest friend and the guy who introduced him to crime in the scenes when they are young (they steal the carpet together); in the first movie, Clemenza is the guy who supplies Michael with the fingerprint-proof gun he uses to kill the police captain and tells him that his father is proud of him. But the actor wasn't available, so they re-wrote the character into Frank. But the movie loses a lot with the re-write; if you imagine that the character is Clemenza, it makes his betrayal in this movie that much more powerful -- Michael has strayed so far from his father's values that he pushes out Tom Hagen, murders his own brother, and his father's oldest and most loyal friend turns against him and Michael forces him to take his own life.
The change, though necessary, also interferes a bit with the symmetrical structure of the movie: the reason the movie cross-cuts between the past (the old don) and the present (Michael) is that each scene is supposed to contrast what the father stood for and what the son now stands for: every scene where the old don acts with honor and helps his family and friends (including Clemenza) is preceded and followed by a scene where Michael acts dishonorably and turns on his own friends and family. Even the last two scenes of the movie are a contrast: the flashback of the old don coming home to be greeted warmly by his family, and the final shot of Michael sitting alone on a bench, with no family or true friends.
The actor who portrayed Clemenza got a real lowball offer to reprise him for the second movie, the name of the actor escapes me at the moment and I'm too lazy to Google for it.
The same thing happened in Part 3 with a well-known actor (I'm not going to spoil it for those that don't know)....but basically, the gist is that either Paramount and/or Francis Coppola are cheapskates
May I suggest reacting to The Conversation (1974). It was also directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and it stars Gene Hackman. It also has John Cazale, Robert Duvall, a young Harrison Ford, and the late Cindy Williams.
Terrific soundtrack, too
Great movie.
I concur, really good movie!
The reason Fredo wanted to take the boy fishing was because he knew Michael wouldn't kill him around the boy. So he knew when they called the boy away he wasn't coming back.
Nah, I don't think so. Fredo is a simple soul. Michael forgave him in front of everybody!
It is heartbreaking to know he thought he was completely innocent again. Just uncle Fredo, playing with his nephew and giving him fishing lessons and what not. BANG BANG, you're dead!
This film has a lot of history in it. Early 1900s NYC, Ellis Island, The Cuban Revolution. Even the show that they watch in Cuba, the Superman show, was an actual sex show that used to play there before Fidel and company took over.
Wow! So the Superman show was real! I learned something today, thanks!
And don't forget the historical reality of the Senate hearings on the Mafia, televised live on several of the very few TV channels that existed back then.
@@flarrfan There is no such thing as mafia! (The Offer)
19:21 Good eye, Cassie..Harry Dean Stanton before Aliens..And you saw him telling Bruce Banner, "Son, you got a condition" in the Avengers. Godfather 2's the only sequel to win the Oscar after winning for the first one.And both of 'em are on the AFI top 100 list. Loved your reactions!! (The flashbacks with Deniro were straight out of the book wrtten by Mario Puzo, word for word.)
Good job picking up on the nuanced role of the end scene. Also, notice when they’re all at the table, Michael is condemned and made to feel alone and left out. He was the black sheep of the family in this way. Fredo was painted as an outcast, but it was really Michael for me. So much to be said on the subject of becoming what you fear or swear off. These movies are an onion that one has to peel back the layers of. Great reaction. You’re one of my faves in the reaction world. Keep going!
also, that Fredo supported Mike's decision to enlist - "good for you Mike" (paraphrasing)....
He was the outcast for wanting to be away from his family, now he's alone because he was in to deep with his family. Coppola is a genius.
Well, remember, the ending scene shows one more aspect about Michael which differed him from Vito. Vito lost his family as a little child, he treasured and protected that family his whole life. When he meets with the mob bosses after Tony is killed, he doesn't go to declare war but to surrender, in order to protect his family. He gives the other bosses what they want, in order to protect Michael and fredo and his grand children. He also knows those mob bosses will only honor this peace as long as vito is alive. in a way he painted the target onto him and took it off the rest of the family.
Michael however, with his enlistment in the military "defied" the family vito struggled his whole life to build and protect. He was talking about grand ideals of country and liberty, but Sicilians think in terms of family first. And Michael stood out from the rest of them and was ostracized silently by them because his "values" were wrong as the family saw them. Country is fine and all, but its not more important then family. And this is what is his undoing in the series. Michael was valuing the "concept" over the "reality". He valued country over family, then when he became the head of the family he valued family (the crime family) over his own direct blood family. Every choice he made was to protect the family, sure, but in his mind the crime family came first, and his blood family second. It's what Tom laments about in the ending scene, how "family" doesn't mean the same thing anymore. And he's right. Vito would never have got it backwards like Michael does. to Michael, blood, friends, associates, even people he owes, who all should be close to him, are all second place to the "crime family".
Heck, look at the move to vegas. Compare the lives of Vito and Michael. Vito lived in the neighborhood he was bleeding. He knew everyone who lived there. Michael however divorced the "Family" from the "neighborhood", and moved to vegas. He transformed the Cordileone Family from a mafia into a gang and it never occurred to him this is what he was doing. Michael's eyes were never set on home, and it was what undid him.
I love your reactions. Btw the cake in Cuba had a map of Cuba on it. The gangsters cutting it up symbolizes their taking over the island.
The Cuba scenes were filmed in Dominican Republic where I lived in the 70s. One of the old cars belonged to a buddy of mine.
As for the movie; Vito prioritized family. When Vito lost his job at the grocer, he still brought a pear home and loved how his wife appreciated this small gesture.
Michael lost his way and prioritized power. He sacrificed his family for power.
I believe that Kate emphasized that the aborted child was a son in order to hurt Michael, and possibly because she didn't want a son following in his footsteps.
Yes, Michael needed sons to carry on "the so-called family business".
"May their first child be a masculine child!"
@@phousefilms It wasn't their first child, they already had a son and a daughter.
@@AudieHolland I don't think that was the point of the quote. I think they were just reiterating the "importance" of having a male be born in the family
I think the phrase you were looking for at the end is a "red herring". That is when you are shown or told something that you think is important but it turns out to be nothing. The other word you were looking for is "foreshadowing". Anyway, love your content and loved your reaction to this movie. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is great because Michael didn't want any part of this life but when things happened and he had to step up to protect his family, he did. This movie is all about the costs, even when you have good intentions early on, in the end you might end up doing things you would never imagine. Part III is good but not nearly as good as Parts I & II. Anyway, cheers to you and your family. I hope everyone is well.
Right, and the opposite is Chekhov's Gun.
I think you're right about the "red herring" but "red pigeon" was a decent try. For myself, I got it totally wrong, I thought she meant "MacGuffin" so I'm glad I read your comment, it makes more sense than what I thought and I'm metaphorically kicking myself for not getting it :-)
Another word for foreshadowing is “exposition”, though that’s slightly different. Exposition is dropping important information in front of the audience for use later. Back to the Future is a master class in exposition.
How much did Mama Corleone know? She knew a lot. In the book she went to church every day to pray for Vito's soul. In the book, Kay converted to Catholicism and started praying for Michael's soul. They shot a scene of Kay praying for the original movie but it was cut out of the finished film.
14:08 - And that's how Don Tommasino, the Sicilian mob boss who was hiding/protecting Michael during his exile in Sicily in "The Godfather", got to be confined to a wheelchair and a cane. Gotta love the attention to little details like that by Francis Ford Coppola.
I'm really loving your journey into classic movies. I am a 76 year old woman who grew up watching black and white movies and t.v. and I still enjoy them. I recently saw your review of Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart and so I recommend the movie To Have and Have Not. His co-star Lauren Bacall became his wife.
They made a few other movies together, but none of them matched the chemistry displayed in the first one...
Fun fact: the ending flashback scene was supposed to include Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone but he was a no show to set. Francis Ford Coppola rewrote the entire the scene the day of.
Brando was a piece of trash. He didn't even show up to the academy awards
I actually think it works even better without seeing him everyone else is out of the room and Michael is left alone then pans to him being alone again in the present
Brando was right not to turn up, it's more about the ghost of his legacy and him in his prime as a young man. Robert De Niro should be, and was, the only Vito in the film.
@@colliric There's footage (leaked out many years ago and was included with the Special Edition versions of the Trilogy) of Robert DeNiro reading and auditioning to play Michael Corleone in 1971. I'm glad things worked out the way they did for both Pacino and DeNiro. By 1974, DeNiro was already a known name with Mean Streets and his relationship with Marty Scorsese.
Many movies has intermission back through the50s to 80s because we had drive-in theaters where we can watch movies from our cars and they had intermission so we could go to the bathroom and the snack bar and get food, intermission was a lot of fun and extremely popular everyone would get out of their cars and mingle.
@@james_9920 I was born in 1955 and I spent many a Saturday night at the drive-in theater with the swings and the singer hotdogs and the concessions and piling people into the trunk of your car
@@Jim-pc5vz Well, I was born in 1954, and the intermissions weren't JUST for the drive-ins. Movie theaters used to be more like theaters for live plays, one giant auditorium instead of complexes of small movie theaters. So the movies were treated more like plays than they are today. For longer, more significant films, In addition to the intermission, they had overtures before the movie started and entr'acte music as people wandered back into the theater after intermissions. Such movies also often had exit music as people left.
JFK in 1991 and Titanic in 1997 had intermissions. The Hateful Eight in 2015 had certain releases with an overture and intermission. It’s still done.
@@randall-king I only saw those movies on, thanks for informing me of that
The cake Michael & Hyman had on the balcony represented Cuba. They were cutting up and distributing the cake,
while they were divvying up territory to do business in Havana.
Ironically they lost it to the communists.
When I was younger and watched this movie for the first time, I had a lot of trouble understanding it, especially the parts in Havanna, as I knew absolutely nothing about the revolution in Cuba back then. But even without that, I felt this movie had so much intricate shady business dealing and planning, and I felt immensely stupid for not understanding anything of it. Today I love the movie, but still prefer the first one, since it feels more streamlined and easy to understand even if you're not into mob stories, as well as Marlon Brando's iconic portrayal of Vito.
The symbolism for The Cake when they were in Cuba was supposed to be symbolic of how nefarious and unscrupulous businesses, local and foreign, were carving up Cuba at the time. This sort of naked corruption was part of the factors that lead to the numerous rebellions that engulfed the country until Fidel Castro took power.
Plus it's a damn tasty looking cake.
The Godfather I and II are masterpieces. Vito Corleone is of course the Godfather. Every mob after has him depicted in the back of the creators head.
"I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse"...
About the "red herring": in Hollywood, there's a concept known as a "loose" or "tight" script. A "tight" script is one where every single line and every action drives the plot forward, while a "loose" one is where not all of the dialogue matters to the plot but helps to create atmosphere or show character or personality. Loose scripts tend to be slow burns. A good example of a "tight" script is "Back to the Future", which is taught in film schools as an example of a perfectly tight script where literally every sentence is necessary to the plot. "The Godfather" and GF part 2 are loose scripts where not every line matters to the story and a lot of the dialogue is there to show relationships or personality or create ambience. A lot of older movies are loose (and longer), but most modern movies are tighter (and shorter), which is a reflection of modern tastes, but I personally think that you lose a lot of atmosphere and suspense when you make scripts tighter. A good example of a modern "loose" script that you liked, Cassie, was the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which had tons of dialogue that had nothing to do with the plot but helped immerse you in the universe.
The phrases you’re probably thinking of are-
“Chekhov’s Gun” - which is a storytelling rule that states that if you have a gun hanging on the wall in the beginning of your story, then by the end someone must use it.-
and “Red Herring” - which is a general phrase that refers to a false lead, or in storytelling, something that is used to draw attention away from whatever the author wants kept mysterious.
Great reaction! Thank you for sacrificing your happy disposition, this is tough one, but necessarily cautionary.❤
Never Go Against The Family - Coppola's Greek tragedy merging with the curdled American Dream is an undisputed masterpiece. *Red herring is the term you are looking for when a director pulls a bait and switch or focuses on something which in fact is not important - pretty much 'the old shell game'. You can skip pt. III - trust me.
If you watch Part 3, make sure you you watch the most recent edit, titled "The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone".
The original edit kind of sucked and IMHO didn't live up to the first two movies. The new version was fixed by the director by switching a few things around.
Thanks for choosing these great movies...I enjoyed seeing them again.
Nah your assessment was spot on in my eyes. As dark and morbid as the film is at times, it's a fascinating character study watching the transition Mike goes through and how it affects those around him and his business affairs. As well as the parallels between his approach to being the Don and his father's. It is a bit heartbreaking to see Mike become so cold, distrusting, and unreasonable, especially since it was such a stark contrast from his father. I always felt that dynamic was at the heart of both films. Glad you liked both, I know you're partial to more lighthearted themes.
At the end of Part II, we see Michael sitting alone in his armchair. He has defeated all of his enemies, but he has lost everyone he has ever cared about as a result: Sonny, Apollonia, Vito, Mama, Kay, Fredo. All of them are dead or have abandoned him.
He still has Connie and Al Neri at least.
@@cml6581 How do you know that? Because of the third movie I bet. Do you really think Connie would ever forgive Michael for killing their own flesh and blood, Fredo? At the end of The Godfather II, *everyone* has abandoned Michael.
But because some executives thoughts we needed a 'part 3,' some relationships were resurrected I guess.
The flashback scene with baby Fredo having pneumonia is to explain that his mental slowness comes from having a high fever as a baby.
6:39 This sequence in the film depicts a Congressional hearing into organized crime. It’s intended to evoke the memory of the United States Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce, which was a special committee of the United States Senate which existed from 1950 to 1951 and which investigated organized crime which crossed state borders in the United States. The committee became popularly known as the Kefauver Committee because of its chairman, Senator Estes Kefauver. (The hearings are alternately known as the Kefauver Hearings.) The term “capo di tutti capi” (boss of all bosses) was first introduced to the general U.S. public by the Kefauver Commission.
Organized crime was the subject of a large number of widely read articles in several major newspapers and magazines in 1949. Several local "crime commissions" in major cities and states had also uncovered extensive corruption of the political process by organized crime. Many cities and states called for federal help in dealing with organized crime, yet federal law provided few tools for the U.S. government to do so. In particular, many cities and states were concerned with the way organized crime had infiltrated interstate commerce, and how it threatened to hold the American economy hostage through labor racketeering.
On January 5, 1950, Senator Estes Kefauver (D-Tennessee) introduced a resolution that would allow the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to investigate organized crime's role in interstate commerce. However, the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce already claimed jurisdiction over the issue. A compromise resolution was substituted which established a special committee of five Senators, whose membership would be drawn from both the Judiciary and Commerce committees. Debate over the substitute resolution was bitter and partisan, and the voting on the resolution extremely close. On May 3, 1950, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, sitting in his role as President of the United States Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote, and the Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce was established.
The television broadcast of the committee's hearings attracted huge public interest and educated a broad audience about the issues of municipal corruption and organized crime. An estimated 30 million people in the United States tuned in to watch the live proceedings in March 1951 and at the time 72 percent of the population were familiar with the committee's work. The tremendous success of the broadcast led to the production of a cycle of "exposé" crime films dealing with the dismantling of complex criminal organizations by law enforcement. The first one of these was THE CAPTIVE CITY (1952), which had the blessing of Senator Kefauver himself: Director Robert Wise took a print of the film to D.C. to show the senator, who not only endorsed it but even appears in the prologue and epilogue, cautioning audiences about the evils of organized crime. Other notable examples of exposé films inspired by the hearings include HOODLUM EMPIRE (1952) and THE TURNING POINT (1952).
I love the entire Godfather series. The first two movies are masterpieces. The Godfather III gets hated on alot, but I have always loved Al Pacino's performance in that movie. It is definitely worth the watch.
Directors Coda Cut of Part 3 was such an improvement I loved it.
yes, the third is not as good as the first two, but i also liked it. Gave me goosebumps just for the nostalgic reasons;) without spoilering:)
Robert Duval's refusal to come back for Part 3 and Wynona Ryder backing out of her role and having Sophia Coppolla( who clearly couldn't act )take over her part really doomed that movie
@@harryballsak1123 I have the directors cut in my 4k UHD BluRay pack I have yet to sit down and watch it....... but jeeze Sophia Coppolla just made me cringe every time she talked in that movie.
23:57 Metaphor splitting havana like a cake, everyone gets his piece
What's the opposite of a Rom Com? Yep, you guessed it. A sweeping epic movie. Michael couldn't do what his father did and keep his family together. Like the first movie, many of the scenes were based on events in history. Hyman Roth was a stand-in for Meyer Lansky, who worked with the mob to bring casinos and gambling to Cuba until Castro took over. The Senate hearings mirrored the Kefauver Hearings on organized crime. Coppola did an amazing job on I and II. Great films. Thanks for reacting. I know it's not your cup of tea so appreciate the video.
Also, Hyman Roth is Meyer Lansky. Roth's move character and what he does and what happens to him fits Lansky's real life to a T
@24:08 When you show something early in a movie and later is becomes important, that's what is known as a Chekov's Rifle. If it turns out not to be important, it's called a Red Herring.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun
"Red Pigeon" --- now that was really funny!!! LOL. I think you are referring to a RED HERRING (I like this definition: "Red Herring: This is a prominently placed clue that leads nowhere, used as misdirection in order to fool viewers into falling for a “twist”.")
Also, there is a plot device known as a MacGuffin. Again, a good definition: "This is slightly different from a red herring, in that a MacGuffin is integral to advancing the plot, through character motivation, and yet its significance is never revealed to the viewers. The term was popularized by Alfred Hitchcock, and he used it often in his films." The statue of the falcon in the film "The Maltese Falcon" is a MacGuffin.
The case in Ronin is another example of a MacGuffin. Never do find out "what's in the case?" in that movie.
I think this famous quote is the movies' point: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" I think you got this point from your comments at the end of the video.
Did you expect THE GODFATHER to have a happy ending. Hahahahaha!
Especially since Francis Ford Coppola was George Lucas' mentor, whatever one may think of the Star Wars prequels, it's difficult for me not to see the parallels between Michael Corleone and Anakin Skywalker... wide-eyed idealists who gradually turn to the "dark side." Revenge of the Sith in particular drove this home in the "Order 66" sequence, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the Christening scene in the first film, and what we see in Part II with the fates of Roth, Pentangeli, and Fredo.
I do hope you watch Godfather III eventually. A lot of people diss it, I think in part because it followed up two Academy Award winners. But I will always defend it as an appropriate wrap-up to Michael's story. It certainly turned out much better than the many ideas that floated around in the 16 years it took to make a third film (many of which sounded like watered-down Scarface knockoffs). Whatever the case, albeit reluctantly, Coppola took Puzo's potboiler novel and turned it into three Shakespearean epics.
If you enjoyed the dynamic between Al Pacino and John Cazale, I would also recommend Dog Day Afternoon. Released a year after Godfather II, it's about an "everyday" bank robbery in New York that went completely off the rails. And while it's based on a real-life story, it also has a number of absurdly comic moments, with Pacino's and Cazale's characters finding themselves way out of their depth.
I don't know what's funnier "passy-agressy" or "Tom is my favorite" 🤭 You're such a sweetie Cassie. Don't ever change. 🙏🏼
p.s. red herring
The Godfather should've stayed a duology, rather than a trilogy. The ending of part 2 was perfection. We didn't need to know anymore, especially when the "more" wasn't on the same level of storytelling as parts 1 & 2.
Michael never loved his brother Fredo, he viewed him as a weak link and a liability to the Family. In Part III, he breaks down crying about how he had Fredo murdered. But even then, he cries that he killed "my father's son". Fredo only ever meant anything to Michael as an extension of his father Vito, but not as a brother. Michael was as cold as ice, but he revered his father.
The Godfather is a story of an aging King with three sons vying for the throne. Each son represents a facet of the King's personality - the brute, the thinker, and the child. But the most cunning one triumphs in the end. And that is exactly what Vito didn't want. He believed Michael was destined for better things
Fredo broke Michael's heart. Ignorance doesn't equate to innocence.
"Women and children can make mistakes, but not men." -Vito Corleone
Disagree nearly completely. Michael loved Fredo until things went sideways between them.
@thomast8539 By that faulty logic, he should have killed Kay for "murdering" his child, which hurt him more deeply than anything in the story. But no, he didn't. Not only did he not love Fredo, he also never respected Fredo. His kind gestures to him were purely obligatory until he had reached his threshold. Godfather III really drives the point home, he respected Sonny and Tom, but Fredo was just his screw-up embarrassment of an older brother
He clearly did love Fredo. You could see his face when Fredo revealed it.
@@commanderkeen3787 The difference is that Fredo was a direct threat to the family and betrayed him. That's different from Kay aborting their child
"Maybe they should go to counseling?" - Popcorn in Bed.....LMAO
The juxtaposition of Michael's life with his father's life and rise to crime is brilliantly done. And the way events correlate with each other in an uncanny way across time.
The gold telephone was a historical gift from ITT but it wasn't important for the movie, it was the people who were attending that meeting that were important.
I used to think when they listed all the companies attending: Ah, respectable businesses *and then* we see Michael Corleone, the Mafia Don from NYC!
But later I learned that those companies were supporting Batista, a bloody military dictator so they could exploit Cuba for profits, so I was then thinking: Look at all those corrupt evil multinational companies, and there's Michael Corleone, our 'independent businessman' from NYC!
The cake, I presume you meant the cake presented on behalf of Roth and then cut into pieces and divided among the companions.
It was a cake with Cuba on it, it was a blatant symbol of how they cut up Cuba amongst themselves.
Here we go! This is the sequel I've been waiting for.
I absolutely, 100 percent agree with you, Cassie. Any movie longer than two hours should have an intermission in it, at least in the theatrical release, so you can get up and go to the bathroom without missing any of the movie.
One of my favorite underrated parts of this film is when Michael gives Neri the order to kill Fredo. Specifically, the reluctant expression on Neri’s face coupled with the solemn nod that says, “I’ll do it, but I won’t enjoy it.”
I need to watch it again, cuz I always interpreted it another way. That with the hug he was forgiving Fredo. Then looked up, saw Neri's face of let down and shame. So then Michael has it done.
@@philmullineaux5405 Your interpretation is very unique. My take was similar to Corp's above. Michael was only giving the impression of forgiving Fredo to appease Connie and give Fredo the belief that he was forgiven. The look to Neri from Michael was most definitely one of "this man still has to die for his sins against the family and as your Godfather, I am asking you to do it". Then, Neri, reluctantly performs this task because Michael believes that it needs to be done to "balance the books".
@@philmullineaux5405 I've always thought that Michael had already made up his mind after speaking to his mother about losing his family.
In the book, Al said he liked Fredo.
@@Nimzzeee Or even before then? Perhaps his conversation with her simply confirmed his mindset. He listened to his mother, but disagreed with her at the same time, fulling knowing that his family was disintigrating in spite of his efforts. Michael was extremely intelligent. Deep forethought and strong planning of his actions was key to his ability to remain alive.
The guy in the court room with the moustache who was on the stand (at 2:26) was Sylvester Stallone's boss in Rocky 1. Rocky collected money for him. He was the lone-shark. He was also the "maniac" in the horror movie "Maniac" (1980).
True
Thanks for another great reaction. The contrast between Vito creating a happy life for his family and Michael losing his family is indeed a tragedy and devastating. I would highly recommend watching the Godfather part 3, since we do see Michael’s son, Anthony, and Michael’s daughter, Mary, as well. However, please watch and react to the director’s cut: Godfather Coda: Death of Michael Corleone. Much better than the theatrical version.
Congrats. You have now watched the greatest movie in the history of American cinema, and you will understand so, so many references that you didn't understand before. Particularly in movies, but also in our culture in general.
I have another favorite, but the first two Godfathers are tied for second.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but Hyman Roth we played by Lee Strasberg, who became famous not as an actor, but as an acting teacher. Through the Actors Studio, he became the godfather (?) of “method acting”, with both Pacino and De Niro among his many students.
Marlon Brando of course.
Michael and Kay at marriage counseling would be the best snl skit ever.
What do you think shocked Cassie the most? Fredo's betrayal? Michael's revenge? Or Kay's abortion? So many choices.
The first thing that she said she couldn't forgive Michael for was hitting Kay.
the intermission Lol..
i think the suicide
@@jakethecaliforniawolf4888 just like the old days.
Apparently 2 of those things were totally acceptable and Michael had absolutely no reason to want revenge. Apparently an act of betrayal shows how much they loved and respected him.
What you were alluding to at the end when you were trying to remember the term for when a movie shows something that is going to be important later, I believe that is called "Chekov's gun". The colourful term you almost recalled is "Red herring", which you rightfully surmised as the opposite. Red herrings are especially used in mysteries, to purposefully hint at an innocent character as a suspect to intentionally throw the viewer or reader off the real culprits.
Part 3 is worth watching as it brings resolution to everything. I look forward to seeing your reaction.
Most definitely. It has grown on me through the years.
It's a good movie, but it doesn't feel like Godfather. It has a very noticable tone and pacing change, along with very... questionable choices to say the least.
@@Crispifordthe3rd515 yea the incest was weird and unnecessary
No never watch 3, I beg of you. You'll thank me.
@@shadowbanned1146 No definitely watch it. Is it flawless? No. But it’s still a solid film.
The story of Michael Corleone is akin to a Shakespearean tragedy. The one thing the protagonist worries about the most (i.e. losing his family) he causes to happen through his own actions, eventually leading to his own downfall. That final dinner table scene is just brilliant. No one else but Michael is sitting on his side of the table. This symbolizes how Michael's decisions have always left him isolated from the rest of his kin. Also note the sad irony that the only family member willing to show support in that moment is Fredo. Michael didn't just have his brother killed. Michael executed his own soul.
Last scene - Fredo is the only one that supported Michael. Fredo was also the one that Michael could trust getting deep with people -- though Fredo only saw it as "entertaining" them and being superficial.
Thanks for that "Don Perignon" 😂😂😂
Fredo did something that was unforgivable there would be no reconcilation for what he did rather he intended for it to happen or not he violated the trust and safety of Michaels family and it almost cost him, his wife and unborn child their lives its no coming back from that. No man put no one above his wife and children brother or no brother Fredo had to go he would forever be liability to the family as a whole if Michael let him live.
1:45 Lol 😂, “intermission” is for people take a walk out of the theater, get a smoke, buy more popcorn & refreshments, and go to the bathroom, then back inside to the movie. It would be the same for the likes of _Gone With The Wind_ or _Space Odyssey_ .
Intermissions were a standard part of big budget movies in the sixties and seventies, and earlier, a part of all movies. People dressed up a bit to go to the movies, and they chatted about the movie, ate their food in the foyer, and came back to the movie all refreshed and pumped up. It was kinda nice, unlike now when you're distracted by the sound of people munching food (and food smells) and talking about what's going on.
Part III is worth watching. It's like the Jedi to Part II's Empire. Weakest of the trilogy, but not BAD.
But I think you should watch the "Coda" version Coppola put out a couple years ago.
It's just edited in a way that's easier to follow and flows more like the first two.
But it's worth seeing at least once.
Nah … sorry … the original is best … the ending fits … 👍🏼😊
@@VAABoy081 agreed i hated Coda even more
9:53 The man playing this Senator is film producer Roger Corman, who also made a brief appearance as a Senator in an early scene in APOLLO 13 (1995). He was responsible for giving many film directors (as well as writers, actors, and other positions) their first break in movies in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s & 1980s, with numerous low budget films, some of which are famous in their own right. He gave Francis Ford Coppola, who he initially hired as an assistant in 1962, his first break as a feature film director by producing the film DEMENTIA 13 (1963). Coppola basically cast Corman in this scene as a little “thank you” for being so instrumental in his success.
Similarly, Corman gave Ron Howard, who had grown up in film and television as a child actor, his first break as a film director, and Howard put him in APOLLO 13 (1995) in the same manner. Corman also mentored and gave breaks to such directors as Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Peter Bogdanovich, Joe Dante, John Sayles, and James Cameron, and actors like Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nicholson, Bruce Dern, Diane Ladd, and William Shatner.
He’s still alive as of this writing, at 96 years old!
I made the mistake of reading the book first. I was upset when I saw the original because it left out so much. This was before I realized that books are the authors vision and movies are the directors vision of the same story. I highly recommend you read the book. It’s so good! Of course I now enjoy both of these movies because it tells the whole family story.
So was Mario Puzo's cowriting credit (along with FFC) on the script of Godfather II just a courtesy?
@@jw70467 Gosh, I don’t know.
14:05 Vito’s friend who was kneecapped by the shotgun was Don Tomassino, the man who took care of Michael when he fled to Sicily after killing Sollozzo and McClusky in the first movie.
I feel really bad for Frankie. He got played like a fiddle
19:20 Nice catch! Yes, he is the guy from Alien, his name was Harry Dean Stanton. Legendary character actor, musician and wonderful guy in real life.
Boy I never really realized before but - Kaye is extraordinarily brave and (arguably) very moral. To deny the evil of the gangster empire. She’s the only one who did.
She Killed her innocent baby. Not very Moral to me.
Cassie: "What's that look for?"
Me: "The Godfather II doing Godfather II things."
I think she knew what that look meant but was like oh no he wouldn't dare. 😀
If you watch part 3, do not, I repeat, do not watch the one called CODA: the death of Michael Corleone.
The best version is simply titled The Godfather Part III
Agreed Coda was worse
"Maybe they should go to counciling..." LMAO
I actually like part III because Michael does have regrets and tries to clean up the family business and unbelievably, Connie starts to step up.
To me those are the only redeeming parts of part 3. Michaels regrets and Connie being a Boss.
Let's hope those that haven't seen it skip this comment.
Just remember the sequence with the little Italian landlord who stammers his way out of Corleone's olive oil business after finding out exactly who he'd been rude and abrupt to over the widow with the dog. "The rent-a stays-a like-a before!"
Though I think Chinatown should have won the Best Picture Oscar for 1974, there is no denying the greatness of Gf 2. I still prefer 1 because it is more straightforward than 2; 2 is a touch convoluted at times. However, the flashback scene and close-up of Michael that end 2 are as good as movies get. As for Michael killing Fredo, I suppose it was necessary to mirror the ending of 1 with all the murders of the 5 families. I'm not saying it was artificial because of that because it is believable that Michael would have murdered almost anyone at that point. It isn't in the film, but I've always thought a part of Michael resented Fredo for being weak and stupid. If Fredo weren't those things, he could have taken over after Sonny's death and Michael could have pursued the sorts of things his father wanted for him. On the other hand, another part of Michael clearly wanted to be the top man even before Sonny was killed.
forget it, anrun, it's Chinatown
@@seventhson2151 One of the greatest lines in a movie ever.
Oscars had some tough competition in the early 70s!
@@richardmcelheney6430 Yes, indeed. I posted in reply to you all the nominees for best picture from 71 to 77 with some brief comments and it was deleted three times. No idea why.
@@anrun Weird it got deleted. Chinatown, The Conversation, and Lenny all could have won Best Picture if they came out in different years!
Fredo betrayed the Family. More than once but the last one put Michael and his kids at risk of death, he had to be dealt with. Michael showed restraint waiting until after Mama died.
You can't forgive Mike for hitting kay but kay gets a pass for murdering Michael and her son. She 100% deserves everything she gets.
I think the plot device you were thinking of is called a "McGuffin".
Regarding Kay's motivation...
She felt the Sicilian "thing" (Cosa Nostra), the blood feuds, violence and murder needed to end .
It's not that Michael would love a daughter less than a son, it's that a son would be another person to carry on the Corleone name and have a place in the leadership of the family.
Then there's the irony of Cosa Nostra usually being devout Catholics while committing atrocities in the name of business (remember the baptism scene in the first film).
She knew there was no way Michael could forgive an abortion.