1 registered members (JCrusher),
137
guests, and 4
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,384
Posts1,059,725
Members10,349
|
Most Online796 Jan 21st, 2020
|
|
|
The Ambiguity of Part II
#587006
12/01/10 01:07 PM
12/01/10 01:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 466 Stewartstown, PA
VitoC
OP
Capo
|
OP
Capo
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 466
Stewartstown, PA
|
I watched Parts I and II again on AMC on Thanksgiving. One of the things that struck me what that although both movies form part of a series, they are remarkably different (for the record, I definitely prefer Part I--if I could only watch one movie for the rest of my life, it would definitely be I).
The entire feel of both films is much more different than I remembered. Not only is II much darker (except for the Vito scenes) than I, but it is far more mysterious and ambiguous. Even at the end of the film, many key questions remain unresolved. Did Fredo intentionally conspire to kill Michael? Why did Roth want Michael dead? What happened in the bar with Pentangeli--did the Rosatos really try to kill him, or was it a gigantic setup to get him to testify against Michael at the Senate hearings? How did the appearance of Pentangeli's brother at the hearings persuade him not to go through with his testimony?
The purpose of this post isn't to rehash the questions above. All have been extensively debated on these boards. Rather, it's to ask the question: Is the ambiguity of Part II (which, in my opinion, goes a little too far) by accident or design? Did Coppola and Puzo get so caught up in creating an intricate plot that they forgot to answer these questions? Or did they deliberately never answer them in order to give the viewer the same uncertainty and sense of fear that one would have being a real life participant in something like this?
Let me tell ya somethin my kraut mick friend!
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: VitoC]
#587007
12/01/10 01:21 PM
12/01/10 01:21 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902 New York
SC
Consigliere
|
Consigliere
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 22,902
New York
|
Is the ambiguity of Part II (which, in my opinion, goes a little too far) by accident or design? I've always said that as great a movie as Part II is, it was rushed to be made and it suffered because of that. Many things weren't thought out properly and the result was some glaring "errors".
.
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: olivant]
#587025
12/01/10 04:08 PM
12/01/10 04:08 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296 Throggs Neck
pizzaboy
The Fuckin Doctor
|
The Fuckin Doctor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,296
Throggs Neck
|
FFC had to make decisions on film content regardless of how much time he had to complete it. Otherwise, it would become an HBO series. Remember, it was already 4 hours. Funny thing is, today it would be an HBO series. When you have that much material to cover, it just makes more sense to take your time with it. I think there's something to what SC posted. The film was rushed. But then, so was Part III, and that was an almost complete disaster. So in my opinion, GF 2 was the greatest "rushed" film of all time .
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#587032
12/01/10 05:07 PM
12/01/10 05:07 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,718 Berlin, Germany
Danito
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,718
Berlin, Germany
|
I think the plot holes in GF2 are accidental. And I believe they made it too complicated. Especially Roth's role remains unclear. In GF1 it's clear: A villain (Sollozzo) appears, and his (drug) interests do conflict with Vito's. The arch villain Barzini uses Sollozzo. A war starts. In GF2, the arch villain is Roth. But we never really know what he's doing: The drapes, the connections to the Rosatos, his relationship to Pentangeli (aka Clemenza), luring Michael to Cuba, then having Fredo come to Cuba. Even after having watched the movie, we're in a greater dark than Fredo ever was. Oh, I almost forgot: I love "The Godfather 2"
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: pizzaboy]
#587038
12/01/10 05:44 PM
12/01/10 05:44 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
|
FFC had to make decisions on film content regardless of how much time he had to complete it. Otherwise, it would become an HBO series. Remember, it was already 4 hours. Funny thing is, today it would be an HBO series. When you have that much material to cover, it just makes more sense to take your time with it. I think there's something to what SC posted. The film was rushed. But then, so was Part III, and that was an almost complete disaster. So in my opinion, GF 2 was the greatest "rushed" film of all time . I always thought that part I and Part III were rushed. For part II FFC demanded full authority, which, If I'm correct, was granted to him. That meant he decided how long the production would take. Considering all the research they made for writing the script, all the different places they went to shoot scenes and all the effort they put in desinging the sets, suggests they had plenty of time.
"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: olivant]
#587206
12/03/10 05:38 PM
12/03/10 05:38 PM
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
Sonny_Black
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,568
|
I always thought that part I and Part III were rushed. Madonne! What could possibly lead you to think that GFI was rushed? It is one of those films by which all others are judged. Rushed? Where? How? I meant that the production of these two films was rushed.
"It was between the brothers Kay -- I had nothing to do with it."
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: Sonny_Black]
#587217
12/03/10 07:53 PM
12/03/10 07:53 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,020 Texas
olivant
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,020
Texas
|
I always thought that part I and Part III were rushed. Madonne! What could possibly lead you to think that GFI was rushed? It is one of those films by which all others are judged. Rushed? Where? How? I meant that the production of these two films was rushed. Still, rushed how? What in the production of GFI evidences even the merest whiff of rushed?
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: The Ambiguity of Part II
[Re: mustachepete]
#587390
12/06/10 06:57 AM
12/06/10 06:57 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 59
Desertwolf
Button
|
Button
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 59
|
Indeed GFII is a much heavier meal to digest than GFI; the back and forth of flashbacks are unearthing, the deep psychological insight on how Vito became the Godfather, how Michael manipulates everybody, and trust nobody, and the dilemma between the survival instinct driving the beast, and the mirage of civility that he so desperately seeks...
I must admit, I didn't get it the first time I saw it, I didn't fully get it the second time, but I got everything the third time; to me, there are no plot holes. There are holes in how we receive the plot, not the plot itself, I believe! The time constraints meant that the plot is not spoon-fed to us, but we must deduct, analyze, and fill-in the gaps - easy to do now with DVD (pause, rewind, listen again), must have been very difficult when it was first released.
To conclude: I like the way the Godfather movies make me work to keep up with the plot; they engage me, involve me, and captivate me through eliminating the complacency of stating the obvious.
|
|
|
|