A Shakespearian tragedy for a Macchiavellian triumph ...

Rating: 10/10 (11 February 2011)

By tracing a parallel story between Vito's ascension to power and the consolidation of this very power by his son Michael, "The Godfather Part II" has an epic scope that remarkably contrasts with the 'intimate feeling' of the first opus. Yes, there's a cruel lack of warmth, of genuine love, of this very 'Family spirit' that cemented the iconic greatness of "Part I" but that's because the very purpose of the film is to show another kind of intimacy, the one between Politics, Business and Crime, as to highlight a sort of inner perversity in the American Dream. This is also why the film is regarded as an epic.
In "Part II", it's not a Five-Families-war that structures the plot anymore, so there's no need for this 'team spirit' anymore, we're far from the good old days with Sonny, Hagen, Tessio and Clemenza, when the Corleones were fighting for their survival. The bigger your territory gets, the more invisible is your enemy ... so invisible he can even be one of your own. Indeed, even the first film ended with a betrayal from Tessio, Vito's trustful capo-regime, a shock that foreshadowed the idea expressed by Michael in "Part II", the fact that "loyalty relies on business". What a world where you can't call your friends "friends" because they are only your "associates" but you still call your enemies "enemies"! What a world when your enemies have to be kept closer than your "friends"! And what a world when even your brother can betray you!
"Part II" is a much darker film in its content because it plunges us in a world where there's no room for genuine and non-calculating people –after all, isn't one of the many things that make the first film more enjoyable the presence of such characters as Sonny- Even Michael has these words about Fredo, "he's a good heart but he's weak and stupid, and this is life and death". Life and death indeed, the family expanded its power, becoming one of the wealthiest in Nevada, but it's not New York City anymore, it's time to deal with a new category of enemies, more dangerous because they are more respectable. The film opens with a conversation between Michael Corleone and Senator Geary, but this time the politician is not the criminal's friend, he not only despises him but explicitly affirms his intention to "squeeze him".
Michael's reply sets the tone of the film "Senator, my offer is this: nothing", he wouldn't feign legitimacy with a man who just asserted his moral corruption. If politicians and criminals play in the same arena: business, then they'll play according to the rule of the strongest. Crime has ceased to be an underworld, on the contrary, it embraced the world, getting "bigger than US Steel" as Hyman Roth would say, in the name of making a profit that would go as far for legitimacy as pretending to serve a country's economy, Las Vegas, pre-Revolution Cuba, even be able to elect a new President. If Coppola was accused of romanticizing the mob in the first opus, no one can hold the same accusation against "Part II", and the directing plays a significant role to that.
Indeed, it's impossible to end the second film with the same level of fascination created by the magical moment where Neri shuts the door on Kay's face, and maybe that's why we still enjoy the first film, because it has this sort of 'happy end' feel, because we are still within the Corleone's inner circle and "the good team won" and could savor the victory behind the closed door. Michael became another man, even more ruthless than his father, but he was the Don in this 'underworld' context, so he can only inspire our empathy, if not our respect.
But in Part II, crime, business and politics are all part of the same hypocrisy, and while Michael could count on the loyalty of Neri, Rocco, Hagen and even Fredo at the end of the first part, in Part II, he becomes aware that greed and thirst for power can triumph over the most loyal individual.... and if he didn't knew that before, the assassination attempt he miraculously escaped from, sent a clear message about it. So, while "Part I" established the necessity of a strong loyalty to overcome a clearly identifiable enemy, "Part I"I highlights the illusory aspect of loyalty when it comes to an invisible enemy that can be on your own side, even your own brother, consequently leading to Michael's descent into paranoia.
The first film was a consolidation of power, built on Family, friendship and loyalty, incarnated by the warmth and quiet strength of Vito Corleone, we find him again with the traits of Robert De Niro, in his Oscar-winning role. He represents the heritage of Michael Corleone, the proper use of power, of intelligence, of heart but the tragedy of "Part II" is to highlight the obsolescence of a figure like Vito Corleone in a world that got more blinded by greed and power, a world where Machiavellian intelligence was a more valuable asset than pure intuition and where even love and brotherhood could be reduced to sheer abstractions. Times have changed and Michael realized that the time of his father is over, and that he can indeed "lose his family". The tragic irony is that he lost it by trying to preserve it.
The second film deconstructed all the values that its glorious predecessor stood for to draw a dark, gripping and harrowing portrait of Crime, incarnated by the cold and ruthless eyes of Michael Corleone, Al Pacino in what I believe to be one of the all-time greatest performances. It's thought-provoking, it's even more realistic, but maybe we blame it for not being 'more enjoyable' than the first film, more romantic I mean. For me, it's perfect the way it is.