While reading another one of Cristina's brilliant posts, I began thinking about something.

Out of the Trilogy, which movie do you think has the most depth? In other words which one has the most subplots which cause you to pick something else up everytime that you watch it?

I think that the Godfather II has the most subplots, twists and turns, which allows us to interpret many scenes in many different ways.


What do you think?


Don Cardi

I agree that GF2 is, without a doubt, the most complex of the films. There are so many scenes that require rewatching, not just because you love them, but because you almost NEED to watch them.

For example, there are so many ways that you can interpret the scenes when Frank is testifying. Why does he decide not to? Is Michael holding his brother hostage? Or is it really between the brothers?

What about right afterwards, when Michael and Kay have their famous fight? What is Kay implying about Anthony? My brother always thought that she was implying that Anthony inherited Uncle Fredo's brains (this was before GF3), but then there is the remark that Michael makes to his father in GF, that Anhony can read at 3 years old.

And of course, we haven't even touched on the whole Fredo issue.

Although GF3 has its own complexities, they are a more of a muddle than something that makes you want to think.

Don Cardi, with the generous praise you have given my posts, you are sure to make me develop a big crush on you . (But tell your wife not to worry. I am content to admire you from afar .)

Only here is anything I've ever written been called brilliant. Gotta love The Godfather -- it's doing wonders for my self-esteem .

Now to the topic at hand: I think the key to the depth of a scene is that there is so much more going on than what appears on the surface. Both the first Godfather and Godfather Part II are brilliant in that regard because many scenes appear to be about business or strategy, but look deeper and you'll see that they reveal so much more, such as tension between the characters or a psychological insight into a character.

When Connie approaches Michael about her and Merle's marriage plans in GF2, the scene is not just about Connie asking for money for her honeymoon trip. It's about Michael exerting control; it shows how, ironically, the more enmeshed in mob life he is, the more moralistic and judgmental he has become; it shows his subtle manipulations in the way he ignores Merle and talks about him as if he's not even in the room. Likewise, when Michael comes to Las Vegas in GF1, his attempt to buy out Moe Green is less about Michael and Moe than it is about Michael and Fredo. Just look at how Fredo is made to feel so inadequate and out of the loop in that scene.

I agree with Don Cardi that Godfather Part II has the edge with this kind of depth because of its more complex plot machinations. Also, the characters have been established in GF1 and we've come to know them. GF2 is then free to develop more complexities and explore their interrelationships; and this it does very effectively, especially with Michael and Fredo.

There are so many good examples of nuances that only come to the surface with repeated viewings. You can really study the Godfather like Shakespeare, it's so rich (well, maybe not GF3, but definitely GF1 and 2). Now I must pause to catch my breath and read the excellent insights others have surely posted (and will post) in this topic.

Interesting question, DC. And, miracle of miracles, one that hasn't been asked before! Congrats!
Definitely GFII. The complexity is what makes it endlessly interesting, capable of being watched over and over again, with a new insight in each viewing. I bet if we were to do an analysis of topics posted on this board, those involving GFII would far outnumber the other films.

Amen to that, Sicilian Babe . I don't think there's a scene in GF3 that intrigued me enough to make me want to re-watch it and pick up extra nuances; I just didn't think there were any there.

Everytime I watch the GF and pt.II I ALWAYS pick up something I never noticed. Facial expressions, something going on in the background ETC.

I agree that GF2 has the most depth, for may of the reasons listed by the esteemed panel and for the richness of the flashback scenes.

I am now content with what I know about the GF1 and GF2 as far as plot is concerned. I am ow more interested in the messages and characters than the plot in these movies. However, I still don't understand most of the GF3 plot. I would like to understand the complex plot involving Luchesi and Gilday. A little bit more about Immobilaire. But I am not sure I will watch GF3 with great enthusiasm in near future. The last time I watched it, I did not particularly find it interesting, except for watching Talia Shire act brilliantly as ever.

Hmm techincally Three is probably the most "deep" in the sense that the plot is impossible to make sense of...

But One is probably the "deepest" in terms of emotional complexity; Michael's transistion from nice college boy to ruthless Don; his complex relationship with his father; and the relationships between the brothers.

Part II

Based upon your question in the subject heading, wouldn't the movie "Deep Blue Sea" have the most depth?


I would say GFII because of the dual story lines, the duplicity of Roth vs. Michael, and the levels of Michael's character. Then throw in the psychological aspect of contemplating and then going through with killing one's own brother.

No question GF 2 not only does it have subplots and layers of complexity but there are great back stories.

I'll answer with some quotes:

Enzo, you would make a good politician .

Something else that adds to the depth of GF2 is the parallel structure of some scenes with GF1. For instance, they both open with a lavish family celebration during which the Don receives visitors in his office, and they both close with the killing of the Family's enemies.

BUT where the complexity comes in is that, while on the surface the scenes appear very similar, there are subtle differences built in that may not be apparent until after repeated viewings. For example, I read somewhere (probably on these boards) that Connie's wedding was a genuine family celebration around which Don Vito built his day. Yes, he heard requests, but that was incidental to the wedding tradition. The petitioners approached Vito with an outward show of respect and humility.

Anthony's First Communion, on the other hand, is an event filled with strangers whom the young boy doesn't even know. It is more of an elaborate backdrop against which Michael can make a show of "legitimacy" while wheeling and dealing with politicians and gangsters alike. Business first, family celebration second, exactly the opposite of how Vito did it. And Michael's visitors don't even bother with the semblance of respect: Connie arrives with a caustic attitude carried over from Carlo's death; Geary openly insults Michael and his entire family; Pentangeli arrives drunk and tries to boss Michael around.

Similarly, the endings of GF1 and GF2 are not as alike as they may seem. Whereas in GF1, Michael took out powerful enemies who would clearly be a threat to him had they lived, in GF2 his enemies have been left so weak and powerless that killing them seems downright unnecessary. In fact, had they lived out their natural lives, I don't think any of them would have been a threat to Michael at all.

There are several more GF2 scenes that are analogous to those of GF1, but not totally so. Look more deeply and you see the differences .

Didn't Fredo wind up becoming the Don of The Deep Blue Sea?


Don Cardi

Neat reply Enzo.

If you can't better the Doctor, quote the Doctor!

I think another indication of the depth and layers in a movie scene is the amount of debate generated. A lot of times this comes about because the filmmakers didn't spell out every single plot point and they left something of a mystery. The film viewers are then left with their opinions (which they can then have fun debating about with others on message boards like this ).

For instance, if Fredo had lived, would he have betrayed Michael again? Who did Michael really love, Apollonia or Kay? Did Roth intend to kill Pentangeli, or did he stage the attack to fail? Did Johnny Fontane hesitate when Michael asked him to sign a contract to appear in Las Vegas? Was Geary defending Michael or accusing him in his speech at the Senate hearings? All good subjects of debate because they are matters of opinion (and even that's debatable ; many think there are definitive answers for some of these questions).

It must be a difficult balancing act to be a filmmaker. On the one hand, if you feed the audience too much information, you detract from the air of mystery; if all questions are answered, then the movie is less likely to resonate in the viewers' memories. On the other hand, if you don't give the audience enough information, the plot becomes unclear and you lose the audience (echoes of GF3). GF2 hits just the right balance.

The more water there is in the film, the deeper it must be - pure logic.

Part II

Part II. The dual storylines about father and son going through their own personal trials and tribulations.

Part II. Dual storylines. Juxtaposition.

Part 3 had some good connecting pieces.
The killings over the opera, and even better:

Never let anyone know what you're thinking.

You know, people seem to forget that Godfather III also begins with a religious event. It begins with Michael achieving a high honour for his surface to the churche, which is of course, the large donations he's made (for the resurection of sicily as well). And also, after this event, at the celebration, he is also approached by people with favors, whether it be Joey Zasa, Vincenzo Mancini, or Kay on behalf of Anthony.

Everyone keeps saying that the first and second movie has the same idea at the beginning whereas there is a religious event followed by 'business meetings'. However, the same aspects are also applied in the third movie.

yea GF2 has more depth - the storyline is a lot more darker and harsher than GF1