TS: Godfather vs Godfather II

I slightly prefer 1, but 2 really is fantastic and one of the few movies to do the prequel/origin story concept right, IMO.

watch Tron first and then see Godfather II. It'll make more sense...

"Love Theme from Godfather II" (Bangalter/Homem-Christo)

Both of them are kind of only ok though, the first is good for how hot Al Pacino was back then though.

I disagree with the first half of this sentence, but the second half is very true.

Also:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioUIF-hSXD8&hl=en&fs=1&";></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ioUIF-hSXD8&hl=en&fs=1&"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh god dammit. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioUIF-hSXD8

the first one I can sit down and enjoy in much the same way as I can enjoy any of the Man With No Name westerns. Like you got all this incredibly overcooked art-directed-to-death scenery and half the cast is gnawing on it like crazy and the other half is staring at them like "I don't understand the language of these ridiculous people from the Unstoic Lands. It must be because I have the largest and steeliest balls ever filmed." Then the musical score comes and kicks you in the head three or four times. You know, good hangover movies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

watched II on TV last night, there were definitely some scenes missing (Fredo lets himself get pushed around in front of Michael by some of the Vegas mobsters right at the beginning of II, right?) and it didn;t seem to make as much sense as the only other time I've seen it. Still great.

Maybe that's one of the extra scenes that turned up in the sequential 6-hour version that was shown on television once? There's no scene like that at the beginning of II, which (after the stuff with young Vito back in Sicily) begins with the big party at the Corleone compound in Nevada where Michael donates a huge sum of money to the university...which you know because you just watched it. The scene you think might be missing isn't missing, though.

well, it wasn't right at the beginning, but i can definitely recall a scene near the start where fredo gets slapped around and it ends with michael telling him never to takes sides with anyone against the family again- it strengthened the b/g for fredo's discontent for certain. never seen the 6hr sequential version, i've caught II on DVD previously.

Now I realize what you mean--the Moe Greene scene. That's in the first film, about 2/3 of the way in. I didn't realize the sequential version was still available.

"I don't understand the language of these ridiculous people from the Unstoic Lands. It must be because I have the largest and steeliest balls ever filmed."

this sentence is making me lose my shit right now and of course its written by TOMBOT

<3

ah, that explains it. been too long since i saw first one.

http://vimeo.com/24595172

sam fuller doing a screentest as hymen roth

That's really something. I was expecting the worst, but as an actor, Fuller's suprisingly okay--better here than in Pierrot le fou. The problem is that he looks criminal. One of the things that makes Lee Strasberg so indelible is that he's just a kindly-looking old man watching college football on a Saturday afternoon.

As a drama assignment, I always have my grade 6 students perform famous movie scenes (picked by me, of course--we run a top-down operation around here). A couple of my boys did the big Michael-Fredo scene from GFII this year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8jODlrka0&feature=related

One of them was a kid who's generally very quiet, but much to my surprise, he really pulled out all the stops. You just haven't lived until you've seen an 11-year-old cry out, "I was your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!"

the Max Clemenza Fischer Players

serious question: do you folks think that the godfather part ii is enjoyable/comprehensable even if you haven't seen part i? i'm tempted to show the 2nd part in a college course but i don't want the folks (i imagine at least 50%) who haven't seen the first one to feel alienated.

I think most of your students who hadn't seen I (hard for me to believe, it's on TV so incessantly) would still experience II as a great stand-alone film. What they'd miss are resonances and echoes that they wouldn't know they're missing. And I'm sure I'm not alone in having found parts of II confusing even after seeing I. (Think I finally figured out everything eventually.)

my second guess is that less than 25–30% of them will have seen the first. of course, i can always suggest that in the weeks leading up to the 2nd one, that they find 3 hours and watch the first one. i don't think anyone would mind that.

it's not important that they grasp every last plot point, just that they not be so distracted by what they're missing that they'll feel resentful or alienated, or tune out.

I always have my grade 6 students perform famous movie scenes

Very curious to see what scenes you force 12 year olds to perform.

I think GFII has a tighter script and a somewhat more compelling story arc. The cast seems stronger, too. Brando was not at his top form in GF. Last Tango was in the rear view miror and Superman was just over the next horizon. otoh, Pacino reined in his histrionics much more than he usually did and it helps GFII a lot.

Sure, go ahead and show II. It can stand alone.

amateurist: is there any reason you're not just showing the first one?

Blue Velvet, Straw Dogs, like that--and yes, forcibly, often to the point where they're in tears.

Other answer: Duck Soup, The Wizard of Oz, Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Graduate (the "Oh no, it's completely baked" scene), Lost in America (interview for crossing-guard job), It's a Wonderful Life, The Hustler ("You owe me money..."), Ninotchka, etc. The GF II scene above and Marge's interrogation at the dealership in Fargo are about as far as I push it. (xpost)

I had the same question--wouldn't it just be easier to spend an extra three hours and show both?

Last Tango was in the rear view mirror

So to speak...

Just a bit of chronological fudging on my part. Both released in 1972. Not sure when they were each shot. Tango is easily the more estimable Brando performance. Far less gimmicky.

i'd kill to see a college prof/TA have his students act out scenes from zardoz ... though it's obv not appropriate for sixth graders (not even in this time and era).

I was referring to an infamous scene, Aimless.

amateurist: is there any reason you're not just showing the first one?

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, April 30, 2012 9:14 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a few reasons: i've got the early '70s covered, a lot of folks have seen #1 already, and most important, #2 helps me make some points i want to make better than #1. although part of me wants to show "mandingo" or "foxy brown" for the mid-70s.

xp to clemenza

(a fly wends in and out of Aimless's mouth, unmolested, as he gapes, glassy-eyed)

Wuh? Oh. Yup a yup! Gotcha! Sumpin' doin' wit' butter, or sumpin'.

what other films are you showing?

i don't even want to go through it since it's really in flux right now. can someone think of a good film to use to teach about fairly early (mid-90s?) digital postproduction (in particular, CGI but not exclusively CGI) that's not Jurassic Park??

not that i have anything against j.p.

T2 was 92 wasn't it?

maybe you can show a few key scenes from the first one?

on topic: maybe the first one is an objectively greater movie, but the melancholy drift (that slow and steady way we become someone we hate) of part two is always very moving to me.

yeah i think part II is even more of a hybrid between a traditional american genre and a European-style art film than the 1st. it's the ambitious narrative structure, languid pacing, etc.

part ii seems snappier and more action oriented than part i, though. just in terms of pacing it feels a lot more like superman ii than superman i, even though superman i is the one that has the idyllic old country scenes and the backstory and whatnot.

there are definitely more and bigger action setpieces, but it's also like 4 hours long

i think i might have watched the chopped up tv version.

hell maybe i'll watch the two godfathers tonight, make a night of of it.

or at least pt. 2.

i've been meaning to revisit them myself -- tbh i've always found them a little hard to love, as great as they certainly are.

see, i think the tv version (which arranges everything chronologically) basic saps out all the lyricism from part 2. also this is a bit of an idiosyncratic reading, but i always imagined that the flashbacks in part 2 were Michael's romantic imaginings of his father's rise, hence the final flashback which does seem to be Michael's memory.

it's not very romantic, though! papa corleone is pretty much a thug.
is the video game worth playing? it was supposed to incorporate some weird brando resurrection technology.

Ryan's interpretation is interesting--I've never heard that proposed before.

i've been meaning to revisit them myself -- tbh i've always found them a little hard to love, as great as they certainly are.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, May 1, 2012 5:25 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i completely agree, but it's hard to avoid them if you're teaching a class.

I thought the second one was "objectively" the better one, in the sense that it's got qualities most critics prefer: less pulpy, slower, emphasis on chiaroscuro, foreign languages.

i guess the game is not so good:
'They never asked me if I thought it was a good idea. I went and I took a look at what it was ... What they do is they use the characters everyone knows and they hire those actors to be there and only to introduce very minor characters. And then for the next hour they shoot and kill each other. I had absolutely nothing to do with the game and I disapprove. I think it's a misuse of the film.'

hard to agree that de niro's corleone is presented as a thug, tbh.

Youth lends a certain glamor to thuggery. Also, golden, suffusing light.

in the context of the story more effort is arguably put into making his descent into violence understandable or sympathetic than in justifying much or all of the other violence we see?