TS: Godfather vs Godfather II

Was just going to say that.

It's been so long since I saw the 7-hour version, I can't specifically remember any of the added scenes. But I do recall that even the slightest change--a few extra seconds at the beginning or end of a standard scene--jumped out at me immediately.

Brando wanted too much $ to be in it, but since they got Caan and the other dead folks they put it in anyway. xxp

I def saw the Complete Novel in '77 before I saw II standalone.

if it's the scene in which Michael announces he's enlisted it's in the original GII.

that's right, it's sposed to be '41 and he's back from Yale.

have we ever discussed the Vito chronology? i think he's identified as nine in 1901 when he flees Sicily, so when the first movie starts he's 53?? Brando is made up and acts like 70 at least.

The chronology in the three films is a muddle. So is costume and set design.

I like the eighties cuts of the disco-era GIII Andy Garcia.

Did discuss the questionable chronology of Mary Corleone's age on this or another thread--the character, as I figure it, is almost ten years older than Sofia Coppola in III. (Which is tied for the 83rd most questionable thing about III.)

http://www.filmsquish.com/guts/files/images/the-godfather-part-ii-alone_2.JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbchmWS5jIU

the prince of darkness

Duvall:

What was Brando like?

This might sound like heresy to some: More right for “The Godfather,” that part, was the guy who starred in “The Sopranos.” [James Gandolfini] was more willing to play the pr—. Brando was more heroic. On the second day of filming, there was a makeup guy who came in the dressing room, saying, “He’s playing this like a kindly old uncle.” He was more romantic. But Brando was wonderful to work with. His scene with Al Pacino, he had a big sign in a tree. He was reading his lines. [Laughs] He was a master at reading those lines all over the place.

A picture went viral recently of you on the set with Brando’s lines attached to your body.

Yes! Someone pointed that out to me recently! Another guy, Luca Brasi [actor Lenny Montana], we’d have him take Brando’s lines away. And Brando would have to stop. We had him do his monologue to Brando then stick out his tongue and say, “F— you!” We put him up to it. It was good to have fun on the set, to keep it relaxed.

http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2014/05/16/robert-duvall-night-old-mexico-interview/

Wilford Brimley is still alive?!

he's not THAT old... he was barely 50 when he did Cocoon.

Anyway, Willis:

“There weren’t a lot of contemporary mechanics introduced, like helicopters and zoom lenses. It was a tableau form of moviemaking, where the actors move in and out of frame, very straightforward. It was supposed to feel like a period piece… There was no discussion of lighting. I just did what I felt like doing. The design came out of the juxtaposition of the bright, cheerful garden party wedding that was going on outside, and the underbelly in this dark house. I used overhead lighting because the Don was the personification of evil, and I didn’t always want the audience to look into his eyes, see what he was thinking. I just wanted to keep him dark… (In those days) screens were so blitzed with light that you could see into every corner of every toilet and closet on the set. I’d always hear, ‘They have to be able to see it in the drive-ins….’ When the dark stuff started to appear on the screen, it seemed a little scary to people who were used to looking at Doris Day movies.”

http://thedissolve.com/news/2271-gordon-willis-1931-2014/

wilford brimley is only 79 years old, but he's looked 60+ since 'the thing'.

yeah I didn't realize he was playing so much older

it was always weird to see such an ornery 26 year old shilling for quaker oats.

because the Don was the personification of evil

this is weird, i never felt like the godfather movies ever portrayed the don as the personification of evil! pacino certainly esp. in part ii but vito was always potrayed in a heroic fashion

yeah, i thought that was the most interesting quote. i prefer whatever movie Gordon Willis saw. altho he seems to be referring only to the scenes in which he's shadowed and distant.

(maybe the moment most suggestive of this is the dissolve (yes?) from Jack Woltz's screams echoing around his estate to Vito in repose)

Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2CX20bBNJE

well, except his eyes appear to be lit if closed there?

anyone see the 'new' HBO 7 hour doohickey? seems to be just The Saga (the VHS set from the late 80s) again, only in HD and widescreen.

Really??! Oh man I want to see it then. VHS thing from the 80s (which was originally shown on TV in the late 70s) is my favorite version of I/II.

Wow.

"The Godfather Epic is the TV version of Francis Ford Coppola’s famous gangster movie saga, in which The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are cut together chronologically with additional footage left out of the films. It aired on NBC in 1977 and was later released (in shortened version) on video in 1981. The result is a jumping-off point for debates about the differences between film and television, and even streaming content. Or, you know, you could just hang out with Al Pacino for a while."

i think thematically something is lost by Vito '20s and Michael '59 not being contiguous. or do people judge that tactic to be some kind of failure?

(i saw it Saga-style on network TV)

I judge it to be a failure simply because I judge the Michael section of II to be a failure. In the context of the extended epic, it's flaws are somewhat minimized.

interesting... i spose i would agree as far as "he's lost his soul" was already the ending of I. But I think most of the supporting characters (Fredo in particular) are more fleshed out and human than in the first. Plus you have Strasberg, Gazzo etc.

(also as i don't much like Brando's performance his absence doesn't bother me)

i enjoyed watching it in the saga format.

i like the saga format because (slightly) more Godfather but it's lesser than the 2 movies precisely because of losing the chronological juxtapositions

I watched the first half of III the other day. Not sure if I'll finish it. I'd heard how bad Sophia Coppola is, but I don't think she's much worse than everyone else. Everyone looks lost or indifferent.

certainly not worse than eli wallach

that said i didnt hate it in '90

seeing The Epic on VHS (it came in a leather-y box!) back in 89/90 was most jarring to those of us in the UK who'd only ever seen the TV versions. loads of great extra scenes sure but also much more violence in the bits we thought we knew already. back in '73 the BBFC had insisted on cuts to the toll booth sequence for example (the kick to the head etc) so The Epic was even more gory than it had been in Theaters.

I always thought she's possibly the best reason to see the film--a couple of really bad line readings, otherwise she's pretty good. Garcia and Mantegna are flashy and forgettable. Pacino, ugh.

i always quite liked III, although no Duvall sucks.

Pacino is basically just as good as he was in the first two. I'd rather he'd have won his Oscar for III than the shouty blind vet movie.

I didn't hate III but I haven't seen it since I was 15

I do remember the audience at the cinema laughing when Pacino falls off his chair

my friend calls that 'Arte Johnson from Laugh-In'

So I spent, y'know, the entire day watching the HBO epic. Hypnotic, and maybe my favorite viewing (having seen the first two films probably four or five times before). I think the chronological restructuring may have led to me catching lots of little things I never noticed before. And the 'new' scenes were welcome additions (in much the same way that I thought the Redux scenes added to richness of the tapestry of Apocalypse Now). Recommended way to chuck a day away!

I don't know how I'd completely failed to previously notice that Harry Dean Stanton is in part 2.

Did you catch Danny Aiello?

No! Goddamnit, now I need to watch it again.

I didn't know who Danny Aiello was the first few times I saw the film (no one did), but after Moonstruck, I probably watched it another half-dozen times before picking him out. (It's a speaking part and a memorable line.)

i have new fav moments in OG Godfather each time I watch. lately it's watching Willie Cicci chillin, gettin a shave, right before plugging Cuneo. and Clemenza sayin "oh Pauly...you ain't gonna see him no more"

also never realized that actor was the main character in Maniac o_O

The more time goes by, the more I'm convinced that the first film is the only good one. Part II has its moments, but it is hugely overrated.

weirdly I had the opposite trajectory, considering it overrated for a while and now loving it almost as much

video at first link

https://thefilmstage.com/news/watch-francis-ford-coppola-and-the-godfather-cast-reunite-in-80-minute-tribeca-panel/

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/the-godfather-tribeca-reunion

wow I started a thread on ILE