I was kinda underwhelmed by this the first time around (probably about six years ago)—wow this blossomed.
I’ll never stop loving the first Godfather, but upon rewatch, there were elements that felt a bit hammy and over-constructed. Maybe it’s because I’ve been overexposed to certain scenes (like Michael’s restaurant killing and the baptism montage), not sure. The sequel, on the other hand, has stone cold restraint. The sets are intimately crafted and bursting with life (i.e. Havana, old New York, Lake Tahoe), but every other element is pulled back. Although we’re not talking on the level of Tarr, Bresson, Angelopoulos or anything, I admire such dedication to inactivity, and in a gangster film nonetheless!
Pacino somehow gives the best performance of his life without changing expression the whole film. And what I think is most unexpected about this film, which the inactivity plays into, is how unromantic it is. We’ve heard so much about The Godfather and other movies like it creating a mystique around the mafia, but I don’t think the sequel does that the slightest bit. Half of the film is Michael discussing his business dealings with an old dying dude. There’s also a twenty minute sequence that’s just a senate committee hearing playing out in semi-real-time. I love it.
In the end, we are left with Michael, alone, with his never ceasing thousand-yard stare and a whole lotta accumulated wealth and power—means very little when you do nothing but sit on your gold. Michael’s father Vito began his violent ways seemingly to help his community. Soon his intentions were perverted and warped into business and revenge, and he passed this burden down to his son. You reap what you sow, but so do your children (and their children and their children’s children).
“It made me think of what you once told me: 'In five years the Corleone family will be completely legitimate.' That was seven years ago.”