IIRC, Coppola said that The Godfather as he directed it was supposed to be an allegory for capitalism. As the viewer, I’ve never bought that.
I’m largely with you that Godfather II is supposed to be a contrast to the first movie showing the corruption of power leading to the destruction of Michael’s life.
In the first movie, the assassinations at the end of the movie were largely justified within the context of the criminal syndicate. The other crime families were plotting to kill Michael, Moe Greene was coordinating with Barzini, Tessio sold Michael down the river, and Carlo did the same to Sonny. These people were active threats to the Corelone family.
In Godfather II, the assassinations were unwarranted or unjustified. Fredo was clearly duped as part of Roth’s actions which has happened years prior. Fredo was not a threat to Michael. Michael knew why Pantangli had thought Michael had betrayed him, and had shown loyalty at the point it counted and was safely incarcerated. He was not a threat. The only one that was remotely justified was Roth. However, Roth was also in custody and Michael had to sacrifice a loyal capo to get him killed. None of these moves were strategically justified, they were petty revenge and score settling.
It also showed how the family had rotted. In The Godfather, Vito wanted Michael to stay out of the mafia so the family could prosper outside of the mafia, using crime as a stepping stone to legitimate interests. Michael had the same desire, to get the Corelone family straight within five years. By the end of Godfather II, this was no longer on the horizon and Michael was directly sacrificing family members out of an apparent desire to protect against imagined threats.
I’m not sure The Godfather is a horror movie, but Godfather II certainly is.
IIRC, Coppola said that The Godfather as he directed it was supposed to be an allegory for capitalism. As the viewer, I’ve never bought that.
I’m largely with you that Godfather II is supposed to be a contrast to the first movie showing the corruption of power leading to the destruction of Michael’s life.
In the first movie, the assassinations at the end of the movie were largely justified within the context of the criminal syndicate. The other crime families were plotting to kill Michael, Moe Greene was coordinating with Barzini, Tessio sold Michael down the river, and Carlo did the same to Sonny. These people were active threats to the Corelone family.
In Godfather II, the assassinations were unwarranted or unjustified. Fredo was clearly duped as part of Roth’s actions which has happened years prior. Fredo was not a threat to Michael. Michael knew why Pantangli had thought Michael had betrayed him, and had shown loyalty at the point it counted and was safely incarcerated. He was not a threat. The only one that was remotely justified was Roth. However, Roth was also in custody and Michael had to sacrifice a loyal capo to get him killed. None of these moves were strategically justified, they were petty revenge and score settling.
It also showed how the family had rotted. In The Godfather, Vito wanted Michael to stay out of the mafia so the family could prosper outside of the mafia, using crime as a stepping stone to legitimate interests. Michael had the same desire, to get the Corelone family straight within five years. By the end of Godfather II, this was no longer on the horizon and Michael was directly sacrificing family members out of an apparent desire to protect against imagined threats.
I’m not sure The Godfather is a horror movie, but Godfather II certainly is.