Hide Article Text (OCR)
David Kehr reviewsThe GodfatherThere’s something intimidating about reviewing a film that stands an excellent chance of becoming the biggest grosser of all time. Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather, Part II” turned a profit before it was even released, receiving something like 25 million dollars in advance guarantees, and by the time it’s been played out it may well take in eight or nine times as much.For the sequel to his tremenously successful film of two years ago, Coppola has taken on a horrifyinglyambitious ^project, involving so many plot threads, locations, and characters that the wonder is that it ever came off at all. Whether it’s any good or not seems almost beside the point. Every penny of Coppola’s 15 million dollar budget is up on the screen, invested mainly in period recreations (and about three or four different periods at that) on a nearly unimaginable scale. Everything about “The Godfather Part II” is spectacular enough to be practically overwhelming— so much so, in fact, that Coppola occassionally seems to be more of a ringmaster than a filmmaker. Enough of the national economy is tied up in this film that to pan itNot that it’s at all a bad film, mind you. It doesn’t seem fair to blame Coppola if what ended up on the screen doesn’t quite measure up to his ambition, since just the size of thatambition is enough to win my humble supplication. The inevitable question is “Is it better than ‘The Godfather’?” and the inevitable answer is, “Well, yes and no.” Most sequels stand in an awkward relationship to the films they spring from. They must be, at once, both loyal to the original in characters and style, and independent enough to be comprehensible, and involving, to an audience that may or may not have seen the first film. Coppola, apparently planning on asecond part at the time “The Godfather’’ wasmade, has given the filmtwo distinct plot lines, one leading up to the events of “The Godfather” and the other picking up where thefirst film left off, so Part II seems to embrace ratherthan to follow Part I.Coppola’s strategy is based on the assumption (certainly a very safe one) that nearly everyone who will see the first, saving his the trouble of rehashing the old material. So, in effect, he’s made a single six hour film with a two year intermission.But Coppola has become more accomplished as adirector in those two years and there are substantial differences between his two films.Part II for one thing, seems to pretend to a much more complex morality with many of the issues which were quietly buried in the original moving to the center of the film. The usual assumption is thataudiences respondedprimarily to the picture of family unity in the first film, and discounted the violence necessary to preserve it.The Disaster films seem to have picked up on this element, the more successful ones tying their characters into the same sort of family-like solidarity, but instead of reusing what now seems like a sure-fire theme, Coppolahas chosen to attach it.The subject of Part IIbecomes the disintegration of the family bonds; Vito Corleone’s dedication to family unity being super-ceded by Michael Corleone’s equally intense dedication to revenge.Coppola suggests that both emotions spring from the «$ame source-^the immigrants desire 'or protection and security, the Mafia becoming a sort of separate society based on the feudal value of fierce loyalty.As Micheal Corleone’s organization grows bigger and bigger, the heirarchy begins to break down.Betrayed first by distantlieutenants, and then by hisbrother and wife, Micheal’sprimal urge for revenge,leaves him alone at the endof the film. Acting from theold values he has inadvertantly destroyed the oldsystem. Coppola’s last shot,a slow track to Micheal’sface as he sits alone, thebackground graduallylosing focus, expresses thedawning of Micheai’s self awareness and the individual isolation that results.If “The Godfather” was a hymn to the value of the family, “Part II” is a recognition of the need for individuality. Coppola runs into problems, not only when the mammoth size ofwould almost be subversive.Sag '■ ■■ JB /■ 8 ■radio, television. 1H 1 Ii ijgyHI “Special Discount to Senior Citizens” 11 XT A\7TT Tlt»QI Vtdfashionedway' JL Ix W LJ jJ 'J O 1U°1381 EAST 5380. CHICAGO 80818 • Pi 2 7808 ]HAVE YOUR LAMPS REPAIREDAND YOUR SHADES RECOVERED20% off lamps and shades in stock' ’$■ ■ * 'FENSIN LAMP SHADE SPECIALISTS5210 S. Harper-HOURS 12-5 p.m. 324-7722Partv:x%v:::: • *♦•••*•**»*• * •' vX-X-Xvtvv.y v.v.* 'Km**:his project tends to dwarf drama, and so manyhis modest theme, but in realizing the group/individual conflict in any more than the sketchiestmatically crucjal scenes—scenes involving two or three characters atmostswampedterms. The family values, o p u 1 e n c yconveyed so powerfully by backgrounds.“The Godfather”, always seem much to strong to beo ftheKehiAs much as Coppolamoves his camerahisdefeatedbythe _ pettyreasons Coppola offers forshots tend to be static for for. The style was morethe most part, trapping his appropriate to the first filmthe actions of the charac- actors in very small and than it is to the second,ters who revolt against tightly restricted spaces, since it leads us to percieveMovement within the scenes in terms of solidthem. For the key charac-terization of Fredo, frame, apart from that of groups insated of as in-Micheal’s brother and the the camera, is usually teractions between in-first member of his family limited to the background dependent individuals.him, Coppola has action,^ often glimIn spite of these few andhad recourse to Orson through a window which fairly obvious faults, “TheWelle’s dollar book Freud. divides the characters from Godfather, Part Two” isPortrayed as a one- surroundings. Important one of the year’s most inneurotic, characters hardly ever teresting films. Still, I canbut are only wish that Coppola hadmensseemsframeof the thematic weight introduced either by a cut relaxed his notorious ob-Coppola has put on his orji pan.shoulders.session with details of set-The overall result is a ting and characterizationCoppola’s visual style curious stagnancy which is long enough to devote someworks much better with at odds with the epic sweep more time to less corporealspectacle than it does with Coppola seems to be aiming concerns.
Newspaper Details
Chicago Hyde Park Herald
Chicago, Illinois, US
Wed, Dec 25, 1974
Page 10
Full Page
Clipped by
Rotten T.
USA 05 Apr 2021
Other Publications Near Chicago, Illinois
News Journal
Suburbanite Economist
Southend Reporter
Community Publications
Southtown Economist
