When Michael tucks Anthony into bed after the shooting, there are two things that stand out for me as a little "off" in that scene.

First, isn't it odd that, as a parent, Michael says absolutely nothing comforting to Anthony? I mean, there were just strangers shooting up the house! Plus, guard dogs running around, alarms shrieking, spotlights shining, and so on. Wouldn't a small kid be a little upset, and need Daddy to tell him it was going to be OK? Instead, they talk about his presents.

Also, would Michael really have wanted this life for Anthony, especially since someone just tried to kill him? If he was sincere about getting out of the life, would he have been manipulating Anthony??

Very good point. It reflects the fact that Michael was void of any sense of paternal feelings or emotions. As Michael was cold and unfeeling, so too he expected this for Anthony, who was being raised to serve him.

Kay was rightfully upset when she confronted Michael about Anthony not being normal. Michael was confining him to an environment where the boy's only friends were buttonmen.

Good point. As the parent of six, I've had to comfort my kids on any number of occasions and about things much less threatening than being shot at. But Micahel was an imitation of Vito and a pale one at that. He had Vito's intelligence and cunning, but lacked Vito's real concern for his family.

On the oither hand, as I posted elsewhere, Vito "knows" that Sonny and Fredo would have to go through this. So, it's not surprising that Michael sees his son going though this also. So, in that regard, Vito and Michael share the same vision for their sons.

In the "Saga" version shown on TV, the scene with Michael and Anthony is shown before the shooting, which would change the human dynamics considerably. But Michael still says he's got to leave very early in the morning.
To me, the most significant part of thst sequence is when we see the kids being coddled by Kay and Connie. Kay absolutely stares daggers at Michael. If "I'm with you now, Pop" was Michael's turning point in GF, that stare was Kay's in GFII.

Actually when he first walks over to Anthony, if memory serves me correctly he strokes Anthony's head and tells him that everything is going to be ok.

That scene has always stuck out in my head because I always felt, being the parent of a boy and a girl, that I would have went on to comfort both my son and my daughter.

I believe that FFC not only wanted to "set up" the foundation for the possibility of a GFIII with Anthony a part of Michael's business, but also wanted to show us that Michael, the old school italian mafioso, was concerned more about his son than his daughter. Hence the later scene "was it a boy?"


Don Cardi

Yes, TB, I've always thought that the comtemptuous stare that Kay gives Michael after the shooting does not receive the attention it should. That stare lays the groundwork for the "Sicilian thing" scene.

On the other hand, Anthony seems mightedly composed for having endured machine gun fire. Under such circumstances, the last thing a kid needs is to see his parent disappear. I wouldn't have done it.

Michael isn't thinking about what is best for his kids, he's thinking about what's best for the (crime) family.

Yes but because of this harsh upbringing Anthony turns out to be a sissy boy tenor.

I think this is one of those areas that separates a movie from reality. The story has to keep moving on, for the audience's sake, more than the characters, not just for time purposes but for the flow of the action. Had Michael spent any more time with Anthony in GF2, it would have been too touchy-feely for a drama.

No. You or I or any normal parent wouldn't have done it. But Michael's losing his sense of family because of his selfish controlling ways and his egotistical drive to be in complete power over his crime family is a major part of the plot of Godfather II.


Don Cardi

I have always been troubled by the way Michael asks Tom to tell him what "he" gave Anthony for Christmas "so I'll know." Keep in mind this was far from the first item on his agenda when he got back from Cuba.

When he sees the car abandoned in the snow, he knows that the kid probably didn't like the car, and that the kid probably knew that Michael really had nothing to do with giving it to him.
No wonder he went crying to his mama bout "losing my family."

I love that scene between Michael and Mama. It was beautifully and subtly performed by both actors, and it shows the true difference between Michael and Vito. For Vito, as well as Mama, the loss of the family is inconceivable. To Michael, he sees it all slipping through his fingers, and is powerless to stop it.

I've always enjoyed how FFC went from that scene into the young Vito scene. After Michael talks to Mama about losing his family, the flashback goes to young Vito, who has now reached a point where he has begun to secure his family, both his blood family and his mob family.

Showing how the son was begining to lose and dismantle his family, and how the father was begining to secure and build his family.

Brilliant.



Don Cardi

I was watching GF2 on Spike the other day with my daughter for the first time. She actually preferred the flashback scenes to the "Michael" scenes. She especially loved the scene with Signor Roberto.

In that scene, mama was the last person who could have possibly stopped him. It's regrettable that she told him that you never lose your family. How many paid the price for that homily?

Great contrast, DC.

Thank you Olivant.

You know, a couple of years back a good friend of mine from these boards once told me that the correct way to watch the Godfather II was in it's original form, and not in the chronological format.

He was 100% right. You cannot appreciate the artistic beauty of the side by side similarities and yet contrasting events of what's going on in Michael's life compared to what went on in young Vito's.

Again, it was pure brilliance by FFC.


Don Cardi

Yes. It was as if they were having two different conversations. I always thought Mama responded to the question with a light heart as if she interpreted Michael's question literally. I agree that it was beyond her comprehension that a family could be broken and so the inquiry seemed ludicrous and almost comical to her.