Review: The Godfather Parts I and II

By Peyton Schultze

Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, the center of The Godfather franchise (via Architectural Digest).

As much as nearly any other film in American history, The Godfather stands out as the rare cultural icon that has encompassed audiences across generations since it debuted nearly five decades ago. With plenty of memorable scenes, a flurry of iconic quotes from some of the greatest actors of the 20th century, and a cloud of tension, darkness, and mystery, the original masterpiece and the two follow-up films have established a solid place in our own culture, whether you have actually seen the films or not.

With that said, we decided to take another look at the 1972 original and the 1974 follow-up classic nearly 49 years since it debuted in theaters. Does the film still hold up? Are the themes in the film as relevant today as they were then? Do the acting performances still hold up? We look at many of these factors from the first two films of the franchise, both of which rank among the greatest films of all-time for many. And without further ado, here are our reviews for Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather and The Godfather Part II:

1972’s The Godfather

Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone, who won an Oscar for the legacy-defining role (via ScreenRant).

For nearly 49 years, The Godfather has stood at the top of the list of masterpieces in American film history as the inventive tale of the rise and fall of the Corleone family. With Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone standing out as the overpowering figure of the family business in front of his sons in James Caan’s Sonny and Al Pacino’s Michael, the film takes audiences on a thrilling journey through the heart of what lies at the true center of the American individuality and its ties to family, love, honor, and respect.

With a black screen and the film’s infamous theme blaring behind, the first words of the film are simple, loud, and ever-so-telling: “I believe in America.”

But does the Corleone family? Maybe a little bit too much at times. When we often think about America on a historical level, several generalized words and phrases come to mind: life, liberty, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and the “American Dream”. But at the end of the day, is the Corleone family awarded these same privileges? Are groups such as Italian-Americans looked down upon and seen as outcasts in the American culture? Or are they often forced to make their own due through actions that may not be what many consider ethical and right, just to stay balanced and upright in the country itself? These questions are just as relevant now as they were then, and the film subtly ponders what it is like for many to live under the tower of American capitalism and the never-ending stop for a need to rise to the top. It is a tough conversation to settle due to the violence and anger often on display throughout the film, and how that intentionally clouds this topic, but director Francis Ford Coppola makes it clear through the character of Vito, and his differentiation from his own son in Michael, that there is more to life than just business on a surface level.

Although Vito is essentially the striking shadow that hangs over every action, Michael is the certainly the heart of the film with his stunning turn into the family business. Yet Vito seems uneasy with his son’s decision to cross over completely, and although he ultimately doesn’t do whatever it takes to stop Michael and is later revealed to have talked about Michael’s future already in Part II, there is some hesitancy seen throughout the film when it comes to their father and son relationship. For example, in the early wedding scene in the film, Vito makes an interesting remark to the rest of his family that they must wait until Michael is here before taking a family picture. In a move of vulnerability that you would not expect from the role of an imposing mob boss, the father figure shows some care for the nurturing state of his family and his youngest son, who has not typically been around the family as much as he once was while growing up and in joining the fight for his country after the bombings at Pearl Harbor.

But what makes this interesting is how, and especially where, Michael ultimately develops his own identity in the first film. After enacting his revenge on Officer McCluskey and rival lord Sollozzo in the Bronx restaurant halfway through the film following the near-death hit of his father, Sonny takes temporary control of the business while Michael flees the country and retreats to Sicily. It is here where Michael Corleone becomes the infamous figure he is widely recognized as in cinematic history, especially following the death of his Italian lover named Apollonia after narrowly escapes with his life while she perishes inside of a car that explodes. From here, and soon after when he soon learns of his brother’s shocking death on the roll, Michael can no longer stay in hiding and escape the life that his family has thrust upon him; he is now right in the middle of it. Italy has not brought him any closer to his family’s history, but America has finally caught up to the youngest Corleone and forced him to suffer the consequences of breaking his own moral compass in the pursuit of victory and revenge.

The Godfather is all about choices, and while it can be easily argued that he made his own bad choices by emerging as the leader of a high-powered mafia, Vito is the single figure in the film who seems to understand the power of his words and actions, and their precise impact upon others. For better or for worse, the elder Corleone is a master of poise and technique while in a room, which is evident in the infamous horse-head scene (which shows his power through indirect action) and when he convinces the Five Families that he will not enact his revenge upon them for the murder of Sonny (which shows his willingness to move on and forgive). But for all of the awful things that the family is willing to do, it is surprising when Vito turns down a drug offer simply because he does not believe in what that particular business stands for, or when he tells Sonny that “a man who doesn’t spend time with his family can never be a real man.” There is a simple quote from the HBO series The Wire that says “a man must have a code.” Vito, like Omar in that series, may be willing to often push the line between right and wrong in his own life, but is not willing to do certain things that would disrespect his own personal honor and dignity when it comes to family, friends, and love.

This is where Michael fails to understand his father’s teachings, and why Vito had no problem with Michael initially choosing not to take the reigns in the family business early in the film. While Vito’s bright expression at the sight of Michael seems to light up the screen when they meet each other again in the hospital room in Michael’s attempt to protect his father, there is no doubt that there is some disturbance in the air later in the film in the final conversations between Vito and his son, before he later suffers a finishing heart attack in the garden. In Vito’s eyes, Michael was the family member who was built up to separate himself from the family or at least from the suppressive ways of the family business around him. To see him turn into Vito himself, to an extent that may even exceed the father in terms of his ill-will toward his peers and those that oppose him, has to be seen as a harsh turn within the Corleone family. It’s odd to see so much of Vito’s final moments spent in the garden with his grandson, but it may be the most fitting possibility to end Vito’s arc over the film. In his last breath, with Michael now off on his own and with so much death and destruction around him in the Corleone family, Vito’s last true sense of joy is in seeing the innocence of his grandson, being raised under the systematic American umbrella, running free in the garden without any worries that relate to the world around him.

At the end of the day, The Godfather ties back to four main ideas: the consequences of revenge, how power corrupts, the right to a personal code, and the fear that lies at the heart of the “American Dream”. As part-Death of a Salesman and part-Macbeth, The Godfather is a film that strikes fear through intimidating images, surgeon-like dialogue, and the illusion that these characters may not be as bad as they seem. Many people may disagree with this and claim that family is at the heart of the film, but I actually believe that is would be a severe mistake to see this film as a representation of the willingness to do whatever it takes to protect your family. Instead, I believe that the film tries to make it clear that actually being there for your family and suppressing others for the sake of your family are two different things, both of which are very blurry within the Corleone family. Hence, this is why there is not really a happy ending by any means at the end of the film. We know that there will only be more terror within the Corleone family for as long as Michael is in charge and refuses to become the man he used to be, and just like the mysterious last “did he or did he not” scene in The Sopranos finale, we don’t need to feel bad for the main character just for the sake of potential redemption; we just need to understand that every price pays its toll in the long-run.

1974’s The Godfather Part II

The complex relationship between two brothers in Fredo and Michael Corleone takes an even more dark approach in the second part of the established saga (via Letterboxd).

But if the first installment of The Godfather franchise offers an examined look at how our choices define who we are and how the culture around us impacts our own destiny, Part II is certainly a more character-based film that truly focuses on how much power and corruption can change any man from hopeful to joyless.

For starters, the second chapter of the trilogy, and the film that closely follows the events of the first film, takes on a unique angle in terms of a storytelling approach. Rather than focusing on everything that happens in the Corleone family following the death of their father figure, the film tackles two different stories within one film: the prequel portion centered around an ascending Vito and the sequel portion centered around Michael as the new boss of the family business. Although it can certainly misinterpreted by many, this actually places even more emphasis on Michael, although he may not have quite as much screen time as one would imagine in a movie that spans almost three and a half hours. By including these flashbacks to Vito’s upbringing from Italy to New York City, we can see even more clearly how Michael has become an isolated and lonely figure who has made the wrong choice at nearly every turn for the sake of profit for himself and power over others.

One of the most revealing scenes in the film takes place in the Vito portion of the film, when he allows a woman being evicted to stay in the neighborhood at a discounted price. Up to this point in the film, we have been able to see how Vito, as played brilliantly by Robert de Niro, built up a reputation and how he started gaining respect among others for his actions. Was it always ethical and was it always the right thing to do? Of course not, especially since Vito single handedly murders Don Fanucci through a complicated scheme that shows just how instinctual and witty the character really is. But what makes Vito stand out amongst others in the neighborhood is not his high status following the murder of Fanucci or his ability with a gun in his hands, but this type of understanding and relatability to the others around him. Vito commits murder in a sly, shady, and cold-blooded way, but he does so for the sake of standing up to the authority who looks down upon others, especially after seeing how the family around him quickly perished at such a young age for senseless reasons. This is something that we saw glimpses of in the first film in the Brando version of the character and why this decision to let the widow stay makes so much sense, which helps strengthen the case that his actions in the early 1900s show that he is at least an honorable character who has some type of fundamental basis in his life, as well as a simple love for the basis of humanity.

This counters Michael in almost every way. Whereas Vito remained a character who was not a hero but at least a respectable individual amongst his peers, Michael evolves into a pure villain over the course of the second film. This is ever-so-clear in his relationship between him and his brother, Fredo. Fredo, like Michael, also does some questionable things over the course of the film due to the fact that he has always wanted to earn trust and respect in the family after being overlooked for so many years, but there is no doubt that he treats Michael with courtesy and respect for most of his life, as seen in the final dinner scene of the film. That is, until Fredo ultimately betrays Michael by working with Hyman Roth and almost killing Michael early in the film. This stains their relationship in a massive way, and although Michael seems to forgive Fredo for a little bit following the death of their mother, it is only done as a service that needs to be done in order to win back Fredo’s trust. Doing this allows Michael to exploit Fredo at his weakest and most vulnerable, without anybody else around him to put him in check, as he eventually allows an accomplice to murder his brother on the waters of Lake Tahoe without anything but a ringing shot in the afternoon breeze. This displays who Michael has become and what he stands for in his own life: a violent, desperate, and selfish individual without any sort of emotional support system that revolves around family, love, or even self-respect.

So what does Part II accomplish that the initial film does not? The further advancement of the tragedy of the Corleone family certainly has its down moments in the second film, especially in some scenes where the negotiations seems to drag on, but every scene and every action is set to further show the true decline of Michael Corleone. It could also be interesting to interpret Michael as a representative of the time period around him due to his stark comparison to his father, which makes even more sense by the end of the film when we learn of Michael’s initial choice to join the military. While Vito’s respectful and particular ways were appropriate for his own day and age in the early parts of the century, Michael seems to be a real representative of the World War II-era of young adults looking to make their mark in the world. This doesn’t let Michael’s behavior off the hook by any means, but Coppola does seem to construct his film in a much more tragic tone than the first film does by showing such anger and discomfort in the character of Michael once he has returned from war and taken the reigns as the man in charge of the family business. Al Pacino plays this role perfectly in the second film, with his blank eyes and locked jaw that seem to add a sense of emptiness and nothingness to each scene, while every scene with Diane Keaton’s Kay takes on a new layer of discomfort with the brokenness of their relationship.

The second film also focuses much more on the patriarchal culture built around these films, and how different characters treat women in different ways. One of the most admirable things about Vito Corleone over the first two films is his treatment of women, as well as his focus on family. In the first film, Vito dances with his wife at Connie’s wedding and seems to genuinely enjoy their time together. His work certainly overshadows their time together, yes, but we see some peeks of some true care for his wife and his family. Flash backward to his early years and we also see this type of respect in a younger version of Vito. While at a play, Vito’s friend tries to egg him on about how attractive and good-looking the actress on the stage is. Vito remains quiet and respectful, and when he sees the same girl being attacked by Fanucci backstage when the two men leave the play, Vito sees to have remorse toward himself for not doing anything about it. Vito then maintains a positive relationship with his wife over the course of both films, without any nods toward affairs with other women or anything along those lines, that establishes him as a family man who cares for those close to him. This is the complete opposite of Michael, whose dissolving relationship with Kay lingers over the film throughout. Not only does Michael physically hit Kay by the end of the film, but he verbally abuses her at any opportunity that he is given to establish his dominance in every conversation. This shows how disconnected and out-of-touch Michael really is within Part II, and even in the first film when Michael completely lets go of Kay behind her back in complete pursuit of another woman in Italy, as he has no sort of emotional foundation that allows him to connect with him wife or his children in any kind of way, shape, or form.

While certain themes dominate the discourse of the first film, the second installment of the franchise is much more concerned with the individual character and what can lead one to become like Michael Corleone. There is a certain level of evil present within every scene that Michael is in, and when he does things like hit his wife over learning of her abortion or kill his brother for something that happened years prior, it is hard to feel truly bad for him in any way. The film is certainly a tragedy, but is it really the tragedy of Michael Corleone? Not at all, as the film centers around the overall decay of the Corleone family based off the actions of one individual. Due to the crime-orientated culture of the film, the state of the Corleone family is not perfect by any means at the time of Vito’s rise. But there is enough left in place for Michael by the time of Vito’s passing in the first film, all of which he burns to the ground in pursuit of capital and power. This sense of corruption hangs over the film like a black cloud over the course of the runtime, showing just how deep some scars can burn when opportunities for more power and wealth in America get in the way of family and friends.