Great film making in a moral vacuum.

Rating: 9/10 (2 October 2002)

A young Turk is asked to take over the family business. The only problem is that business is a franchise of New York's Murder Inc.
The bones of the original Godfather have been so raked over that there doesn't seem a lot left of the corpse to examine. I almost passed on it until I read some of the other reviews which miss so many important points.
Yes, great acting (Brando as the old Don and the Pacino as the new will never get better parts). Yes, great directing (Francis Ford Coppola). Yes, a great musical score (Nino Rota). But, nevertheless it is a film that won't quite a settle in my own mind. The information we are given on screen, while believable, is only a selected view of organised crime. I might even argue that it is a cop-out view.
I saw this film as a child and was, then, unable to stand back and examine it as a whole. I wanted the cheap bang-bang, the stripped suits and the violin cases. I was bored by the central theme and thought that watching it (for three hours!) was a bit of a chore. Even today it is a bit slow, but I am now an adult and I can see all the things I missed first time around, not all of which flatters.
Not that the central theme passed me by: The corruption of the innocent and the rights of passage. How many other people - other than Mafia sons - are born with a destiny? Members of the royal family, sure, but who else? Offspring's of Frank Sinatra (perhaps referred to, obliquely, in this movie) and Elvis Presley haven't even entered show biz no matter tried to take their father's crown. To tell such a story there is few other places that Director Francis Ford Coppola could go but to the mob.
Here you have it all: Wealth, politics, extreme violence, corporate problems, the psychology of power, double standards: The whole world of lies, truths and half-truths all together in one place. They say the devil has all the best tunes, but he has a few good film scripts in his locker too.
Coppola was nervous as a kitten back then. He introduces the characters in a good light and tries to highlight the good before we see the other side (and often it is not lingered on). He knows full well the audience could be lost before it is won. So no medals for bravery.
We see the wealth and power, in clear visuals, but we don't see where the money comes from. Where are the beatings, the robbery and the drug addictions that the mob perpetrate? The bricks and mortar of the Long Island mansion that we see before us.
The family is not involved in drugs (and is against them) says the old Don at a "sit down"? How do we know? Crime is freelance, the only role of the mob is protection of its members which means a share of the money they earn out of direct sight.
(You could say that this sight-unseen street crime puts the cotton wool in Marlon Brando's mouth!)
Pornography and vice he doesn't have a problem with - although we don't see it and don't, in the main, care. Women are just another commodity "that corporations cannot provide."
Killing seems to be sacred (a theme we see repeated in this series). Pacino doesn't have to kill (it wouldn't have been beyond his wits to have the job done by others) but does so. As a vengeful killer he is real deal - as a non killer he is the baby-faced "college boy".
The film does little for women. They are all hand-wringers or professional lookers of the other way. Either that or victims. OK feminism wasn't around back then, but good actresses such as Talia Shire and Diane Keaton don't have a memorable line between them.
Many of the faults of the first part were put right in the second. We see how power was taken (not given) through the barrel of a gun and some of the home truths that Godfather (Part One) tiptoes around. Nevertheless three hours is a lot of screen time not to have a few minutes to look at what these people leave behind - namely innocent victims...