Part II at 40

I wrote about Part II for UK Leftist fortnightly Tribune Magazine, to coincide with the film's 40 year anniversary re-release in cinemas - which is also part of a full Al Pacino retrospective at the British Film Institute's National Film Theatre.

You can read the piece here.

Thoughtful column, Mick.

Michael shows (for him) a remarkable bit of self-awareness when he tells Geary, "Senator, we're both part of the same hypocrisy." But then the awareness is subsumed by his never-ending obsession with legitimacy: "But never think that it applies to my family." But, in III, Michael, without a bit of irony, tells Kay that "I tried to protect my family from tthe horrors of this world," apparently unaware that the horrors he inflicted on his family were in the world he created through his own lust for power. Kay, assertive at last, trumps him: "But you became my horror."

I never understood the point of Michael saying that. To me, it's unclear if Geary's statement was about Michael's crime family or his personal family. In either case, Michael should have just ignored it. In fact, that entire scene was awkward for a Don; I don't think Michael had any good reason to tip his hand about the blackmail or fee nor was it necessary for Michael to expose Neri to Geary.

I doubt that Geary's slur had much to do with the Corleone biological family. Geary was referring primarily to Mafia business practices, i.e. perpetrating all manner of skullduggery, under the thinly-veiled pretense of respectability.

Regardless, it's clear that Geary had way overplayed his hand with that remark, that the insult had hurt Michael's considerable pride - and that Michael permitted himself a rare moment of personal pique in response to it. Pacino played that scene with a brilliant, instinctive sense of understatement, conveying Michael's latent cockiness in the way he subtly bobbed his head while seated in his executive chair, as he began his "Senator, you can have my answer now if you like..." reply.

The very first time I ever watched that scene, I recall thinking: 'Geary, you have no idea who you're dealing with. You think you do. But you're about to find out for real'.

I believe Michael had correctly sized up Geary as a bit of a hayseed: Greedy and corrupt for sure, and eager to exploit his position as a US Senator - from Nevada no less. But naive, unsophisticated, and way out of his league to think he could ever successfully shake down a Mafia don - especially one as ruthless as Michael Corleone.

~ Q

"I don't like your kind of people. I don't like to see you come out to this clean country in your oily hair -- dressed up in those silk suits - and try to pass yourselves off as decent Americans. I'll do business with you, but the fact is, I despise your masquerade -- the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself, and your whole fucking family."

I think that Geary was referring to both families....as well as Michael's Italian background.

Which again brings up the question of Michael's extracting revenge on Geary as being personal...strictly business....... or a combination of both?

Remember, when he killed Sollozo and McClusky, he did give McClusky that extra bullet

I thought he shot McClusky an extra time because he missed the previous shot and got him in the throat, while Sollozzo he got clean in the head.

Right, Wayne.

However, as I asked above, why did Michael tip his hand to Geary? Vito admonished Sonny to not let anyone outside the family know what you are thinking. Michael apparently disregarded that sage advice by giving his emotion based response to Geary. I think it would have been much better for Michael to simply have remained quiet and allowed Geary to think that his blackmail worked. By responding to Geary he may have prompted Geary to marshall his senatorial forces.

I think it was just arrogance/conceitedness on Michael's part, honestly. Just like a "Who does this scumbag think he is?" kind of thing.

Two things:
First, Geary clearly meant Michael's crime family in both instances when he referred to Michael's "family" in that scene. That Michael chose to interpret it as his biological family is part of the "hypocrisy" that both he and Geary were part of.

Second, Geary said "I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow," so Michael really didn't have room to simply shrug it off. I'm also taking into account directorial license--his last remark made a good scene-closer.

TB, I think you're right about directorial license. But I still don't think that Michael had to reveal his intentions at the meeting. If Geary's intention was to squeeze Michael, then what happens if noon tomorrow comes and goes and Michael has not answered? Potentially, that's $250K down the drain plus the 5% from the existing hotels. Was Geary prepared to just give up all of that revenue? Of course, anything could happen over the next 24 hours, so why tell Geary anything until he had to?

I don't know that Michael, a decorated war hero, would miss at that close a range. I've always felt that Michael intentionally shot him in the throat first as to make McClusky feel the pain, realize that he was shot for that split second and that he was going to die. I feel that it was Michael's way of personally getting back at McClusky for breaking his jaw.




"Turnbull is a good man."

This is what is great about this movie...the different ways that many of us interpret various scenes and dialogue. It's what enables us to have these forums for these discussions.

My feeling whenever I watch that scene, and God knows how many times we both have, is that Geary WAS initially making a reference against Michael and his biological family being Italian.... "I don't like your kind of people. I don't like to see you come out to this clean country in your oily hair" ... a knock on him and his biological Italian family.

Then, in my opinion, what follows is now a shot at his mobster persona and his mob family... "I despise your masquerade -- the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself, and your whole fucking family."

Again, the many different interpretations and personal opinions that we all have in regards to various dialogues and scenes is what makes this such a well written movie.

As we do sometimes, we consult the novel. About McCluskey's murder: "This shot was bad, not mortal."

I would make a few observations about the great insights that run through this thread, for what my humble observations are worth:

Geary's offensive comment about "your kind of people" coming out to this "clean" country is purely an insult to Italians. Clearly he does not mind taking bribes from Nevada natives, or for that matter jews from Miami. He just does not want "outsiders" kiving there, as Michael did. The ethnic slur is clear when he defines Mihael's kind not as being corrupt but as people who wear shiny silk suits and who have oily hair.

Michael's response to Geary is not at all what Vito would have done. Vito would have handled it more like he handled Solozzo. "Senator, I agreed to see you because you are a powerful man who is to be treated with respect, but my answer is no. I can pay the $20,000 licensing fee, and this bribery business is dangerous at the Federal level when casinos are involved. Not that I care you enhance your Senate salary, mind you, but this direct bribery business is a little dangerous. So my no is final, and as long as your path doesn't cross mine, our business is finished."

Clearly Coppola wanted to make his own point about both men being a part of the "same hypocricy" do there was some license there, but the rest of Michael's reaction was pure Michael.

Although Michael had Vito's cunning, he also had a good deal of Sonny's temper (although not as bad). There are several instances where he loses it, and this was one. He did not need to lecture Geary the way he did, or tell him that HE had to put up the money. Vito would have seen to it that he did in the long run, but for the short term, he would have kept quiet.

One thing about that scene I never got was why a nited States Senator would allow all those witnesses to be in a room in which he says "I intend to squeeze you," so blatantly.

Probably a combination of ego and folly. "Let me show all these Eye-talians that I'm a man with real power."

I think that we were told he had to get Sollozo first, because that man was younger, faster and would retaliate if given a chance. McCluskey was old and slow, so Michael could take a bit more time with him.

Yes. And it's part of his "native privilege":

Coppola accurately portrayed Geary's attitude as typical of Nevadans of that era who had family in the state for several generations. They thought they owned the state, and that they could make rules that applied only to them--and get away with them. Geary saw no anomaly in demanding a huge, illegal bribe because he was entitled to it--as a "native" squeezing the oily-haired, silk-suited upstart.

A similar and accurate depiction of that privilege is seen in "Casino," when County Commissioner Pat Webb tries to get Ace Rothstein to reinstate his no-good brother in law into a "juiced" job. When Rothstein refuses, Webb says, "You people will never understand that you're here as our guests, and I'll send you back to where you came from if I have to harelip the governor."

TB You would know this... I think Turnbull is based on an actual Nevada Senator from that time. BTW as a complete aside, if your read "Bombastic" Bushkin's biography of Johnny Carson, there are great passages about how carson tried to buy into Vegas Casinos a little before they were "clean" and how the mob pushed him out.

Well, if anyone, Pat McCarran. His term in office ended in the mid50s though. But, as with Vito, Geary was probably a composite.

Geary was based loosely on Sen. Pat McCarren, who was about as crooked as a pretzel.

Is Michael's 'show' of emotion in this scene also down to how immediately and visibly narked he is at being outdone by the resourceful Turnbull? The look he throws Hagen is priceless. My article above had to cater in some way to the un-initiated, and wordcount prevented me from going into such details, but that line -- "Turnbull is a good man" -- is so revealing. Michael's furious that someone is able to get the upper hand on him, to say nothing of being in a position to flaunt it. It's kind of like, when later in the film Kay tells him about the abortion, his outward rationality disappears in an instant and simmering complexes, paranoia and seething self-hatred come out in an explosion of anger; here, we see a glimpse of that: when his opponent (naively, dumbly) shows how cunning he is so early on, Michael's response is to just juggernaut him with take-it-or-leave-it threats.

True Capo. Still though, I expected better of Michael. As someone else posted, Michael could at times manifest anger similar to Sonny's although not always as aggressive as Sonny's. Michael should have simply heard what Geary said without responding. In the scene with Kay, her remark about this Sicilian thing probably impugned what he saw as his efforts to protect his family.

Compare that scene to the scene in Vito's office where Vito letts Sol know that he is aware of the participation of the Tattaglia family in the drug business. Sol doesn't pause and tell Vito "Hagen's a good man," he merely casts a quick glance at Tom but then says, "Te salute Don Corleone," and moves on.

This raises another question: what deal did Michael work out with Turnbull? Clearly, Turnbull is connected with Geary ("From now on you deal with Turnbull"). And, whatever it was, it fell somewhere between Michael simply applying to the Gaming Commission for a license, and paying Geary $250k plus 5% of the gross of all four hotels. Perhaps Turnbull told Michael he'd get the license if he made a "magnificent" contribution to the state university, and allowed Geary to accept the donation?


That little exchange reeked of flattery. Sol had to have told Hagen he was being sponsored by the Tattaglias in order for Vito to consider him a serious player. Had Sol really hidden his Tattaglia connection until Tom outed it, Vito would have had good reason to have Sonny escort him to the door.

Well yeah TB, I think that Turnbull might have very well arranged for the donation and its scenario. But if so, why did Geary tell Michael to never contact him again and to only deal with Turnbull?

Also, the Tattaglias had to vouch for Sollozzo since in the novel Vito tells Sollozzo that he agreed to see him out of respect for the Tattaglias.

Perhaps because Geary had already gotten the public relations value of the "magnificent contribution" when all the cameras clicked, and now had no further use for Michael, except as someone who had to pay him off.

Exactly!

I was home sick the other day and Part II was on Cinemax and I caught the last 2.5 hours of it. Small things I picked up on, Sonny boxing with someone (can't remember who, maybe Clemenza?) in Sicily, and then later in the flashback with Fredo, and the chair in the background as Mike sits alone at the table as his family greets Vito at the door for his surprise birthday party.

Maybe I noticed them before but they struck me again. God I love this movie. I always had a hard time deciding between the first 2 movies, but Part II has been officially sealed as my favorite of the 2 and the best movie of all time.

I remember going to see it when it opened: shortest 3-1/2 hour film ever, I thought. I really wanted more!

I watched II today. I noticed that in the final scene where Michael is sitting alone outside at his compound he is wearing a wedding ring.

Hmmm...interesting. Probably a faux pas, but, even though III wasn't conceived yet, it made for a significant prediction...

Good catch, Ili... I just noticed that the other day when it was on cable. I think it was more of a statement about Michael being in a total state of denial and unreality, rather than a precursor to anything.

At that point he had taken Kay's children from her, closed the door in her face, but he still refused to believe he was not a married man. After all his excuse for all his criminal behavior was always that he did it to protect his family.

Evenn in III when Kay shows up remarried, he is wanting her for himself.

By the way, while watching II I swear the opening scene in its theatrical release was the reception scene and not the Sicily scene. Am I mis-remembering?

I though I was getting forgetful! It was the funeral in sicily. It segues into Anthony's first communion.

That doesn't surprise me, and I actually find it quite in character for Michael. All of his hopes and dreams for the Corleone family - that fruitless quest for legitimacy - were all tied up in Kay and her WASPishness. She brought him that genuine Ivy League, descendant of the Mayflower quality that he so badly wanted for the Corleone Family. I can see him desperately clinging to that dream.

Michael's bodyguard shows up at Roth's hotel room in order to kill him. He first must dispose of Ola whom he dispatches with a coat hanger. He didn't use a gun or knife. Why not? Of course, a gun makes noise and attracts attention. Perhaps it was a challenge to get a gun in Cuba or to acquire one after arriving there and also to acquire a silencer. So, why not a knife? One of those is easy enough to obtain.

Also, what about Ola's body? Why didn't Roth's entourage find it? Why didn't they notice him missing?

So, why did Ola tell Michael that Roth would go along with his moving Klingman out? Doing so would result in a Corleone takeover of the Tropigala. So, Roth was okay with that? Did Roth speak for the Lakeville Road mob?

Ola was stringing Michael along--making him feel "relaxed..confident in the deal" (as Michael later said to Pentangeli). According to Roth's Plan A, Michael would have been dead that very night, making the Tropigala takeover a moot point.

I'm watching GFII this weekend. Michael's son celebrates his communion in Tahoe. Michael leaves Tahoe and goes to meet Ross in Florida. He then leaves Florida and goes to New York to meet with Pentangeli. When he gets there, there's a considerable amount of snow on the ground and everyone is bundled up.

Now, communion's take place around Easter which can take place as early as late March (mine was in May). Of course, snowfalls in New York can take place in March and April (maybe even in May).

I'm wondering if FFC produced the New York snowfall or if nature did and FFC simply adjusted to it.

It was one of those directorial license anomalies that we've discussed many times:

FFC had to put Michael in Havana on New Year's Eve, in order to provide the historical authenticity of Batista abdicating and Castro taking over. Since events had to move fast because his and his families' lives were threatened, FFC had to move Anthony's First Communion to mid- or late-December, then have him leave Tahoe immediately after the shooting--to Miami, to New York (hence the snow) then to Havana. Perhaps he got a dispensation from the Church to move Anthony's communion to December.

And, while he was at it, he must have gotten another dispensation on Tahoe weather--daily highs are around 40 in mid-December, lows about 18. But nobody's wearing cold weather gear at Anthony's party.

Good analysis TB.

I was under the assumption that when mike came back it was in december or something which explained the snowfall. We all know the godfaher movies have a lot of time jumps that arent specified

I was looking up some quotes and found this GF2 Script link...

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Godfather-Part-II.html

In it, there is a scene where Frankie Pentangeli has a meeting with The Rosato Brothers in a restaurant with a lot of dialogue.

It appears in this script right before Frankie returns home to find Michael waiting for him at the old Corleone house.

This is not the scene where Frankie is strangled at the bar meeting - it is a completely different scene.

Was the scene with Frankie & Carmine Rosato actually shot? Obviously, it was never in the final movie.

Yes, I'd posted about this years ago. Here's the proof:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/godfather/images/b/ba/Rosatos.jpg

Thanks, Sonny. Does this footage appear anywhere on any version of anything GF? Or just lost on the cutting room floor forever?

Lost on the cutting room floor unfortunately. It should have been included as a deleted scene.