The Godfather Part II - great film, bad title

MakeEmLaugh

Does anyone else feel that The Godfather Part II was a bad title for Francis Ford Coppola to choose for his 1974 sequel to the original gangster classic? Coppola insisted on the title in spite of Paramount's objections - sequels with 'II' or '2' in the title were uncommon back then.

However, history has proven that the studio may have been right. The Godfather Part II is, in my opinion, a far superior film to The Godfather, and yet it almost never charts as high on polls of the greatest films ever made. I believe this is because audiences and critics alike feel praising a film which so explicitly fastens itself to its predecessor, and not equally praising said predecessor, does not make a lot of sense.

The Godfather Part II was provisionally titled Don Michael while it was in development stage. While this doesn't strike me as a particularly memorable title, it would at least have allowed the film to be recognised on its own, superior merits to The Godfather.

Or do people think I am completely wrong, and that The Godfather Part II was the best possible title?

Radiosonde

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Does anyone else feel that The Godfather Part II was a bad title for Francis Ford Coppola to choose for his 1974 sequel to the original gangster classic? Coppola insisted on the title in spite of Paramount's objections - sequels with 'II' or '2' in the title were uncommon back then.

Films call Part 2 are still uncommon now. It's not The Godfather II, or the Godfather 2, or The Godfather 2: Back in the Habit, it's The Godfather Part II, which sounds classier somehow, more literary or something, a continuation of Michael's story and character, not a 'brand new adventure' with the same character.

I'd like to see the Godfather part III retrospectively renamed something like Nothing to Do with the Godfather Part Nothing.

MakeEmLaugh

Radiosonde wrote: »

I'd like to see the Godfather part III retrospectively renamed something like Nothing to Do with the Godfather Part Nothing.

Coppola actually wanted to call the third film The Death of Michael Corleone, but the studio insisted on The Godfather Part III. Go figure.

Sad Professor

The Godfather II is a fantastic film and I personally do find it more enjoyable than the first. But I disagree that it's a superior film. It is better and more accomplished in many ways, however film criticism is about evaluating a film in the context of cinema as a whole. As great as it is, The Godfather Part II is still a sequel and in fairly typical sequel fashion, it retreads a lot of the same ground as the original. The Godfather came first, it's the more original, more groundbreaking film, without which the second film wouldn't exist, and as such it is rightly ranked by most critics over its sequel.

The Godfather Part II is a perfect title as one of the most remarkable things about the film is how Coppola convinces you that it is the second part of the story, as if he was simply filming the second half of the novel. When in fact this wasn't the case at all. Despite winning Best Adapted Screenplay, it was mostly an original script written by Coppola himself with only the young Vito bits taken from the novel. Yet after watching it it's difficult to view the first film as anything but first part of a two-part saga. For years the S&S poll counted them as a single film, a tribute to Coppola's accomplishment.

MakeEmLaugh

Sad Professor wrote: »

The Godfather II is a fantastic film and I personally do find it more enjoyable than the first. But I disagree that it's a superior film. It is better and more accomplished in many ways, however film criticism is about evaluating a film in the context of cinema as a whole. As great as it is, The Godfather Part II is still a sequel and in fairly typical sequel fashion, it retreads a lot of the same ground as the original. The Godfather came first, it's the more original, more groundbreaking film, without which the second film wouldn't exist, and as such it is rightly ranked by most critics over its sequel.

The Godfather Part II is a perfect title as one of the most remarkable things about the film is how Coppola convinces you that it is the second part of the story, as if he was simply filming the second half of the novel. When in fact this wasn't the case at all. Despite winning Best Adapted Screenplay, it was mostly an original script written by Coppola himself with only the young Vito bits taken from the novel. Yet after watching it it's difficult to view the first film as anything but first part of a two-part saga. For years the S&S poll counted them as a single film, a tribute to Coppola's accomplishment.

An articulate point, much of which I agree with. Yes, of course, The Godfather is the more important film. Whether or not The Godfather Part II is superior to the first is perhaps moot. Personally, I find Part II a more artful, and indeed, more personal film in many ways.

As Coppola himself said...

"...my idea to tell the story of the father and the son in parallel action - it wasn't really so much flashbacks in my mind - but I'd always wanted to write a screenplay that told the story of a father and a son at the same age, say they were both in their thirties and you would interrelate the two characters. So that's what I did. I used the subsidy of The Godfather to allow me to write a kind of a personal work."

Radiosonde

I think Coppola discussed his and Puso's ideas for a Part IV (which wouldn't seem to make much sense, given Michael's story was definitively concluded) on the commentary track of the DVD trilogy...then later ruled it out and later still ruled it back in again. I guess that one is probably going to end up being made at some stage, given the current fetish for remakes and reboots.

krudler

Part II sounds classy, although it irks me when movies like The Hangover use it for some weird reason.

johnny_ultimate

OP, I have to admit I'm a little confused about your opening argument. I'm really not sure how the film would be perceived any differently if it was called anything differently - it's not like I'd consider Sanjuro any less of a follow-up to Yojimbo just because the names are different and in spite of my personal preference for the first. TGPII would be the very same film, still an extension / expansion of the first as well as a valuable work in its own right. It's IMO as well-regarded as its predecessor (they both rank in the top 40 of the latest Sight & Sound poll). If critics choose one or the other, well I'd imagine it's down to a simple case of practicality. If you have to submit a 'top ten', I can only suspect many would feel a little uncomfortable dedicating two valuable spots to the same director or film series - if both part one and two are voted for, that's suddenly some other personal favourite that's neglected. I doubt many would consider a vote for one a major snub for the other.

I'd also say there's no major value in saying "this is definitively better" - when we come to ranking masterpieces and films of importance, I think the futility of listing starts becoming obvious. To me it's more productive to say "these are both excellent films" than "this great film is better than that great film". No harm at all having personal favourites, but objectively speaking it's very possible to admire films without the need for constant ranking. I think all the Toy Story films are absolutely superb, but I feel no need whatsoever to put them in any kind of order of preference, and I'd feel something similar with the first two Godfather films - in both examples, the sum is perhaps more valuable than the individual parts.

And you have to remember the effect The Godfather would surely have had on release, a real shock to the system. By its very nature we all go into watch the sequel with high expectations, and even if it undoubtedly is an expertly crafted and (arguably) even more mature work, for older viewers particularly it could not have had quite the same revolutionary impact. As Sad Prof. said, perhaps the shockwaves it caused are most noteworthy factor of all. I'd have no doubt whatsoever the Godfather has influenced culture in a far deeper way than its sequel - heck, on a very basic level, just look at how many scenes and characters from the first have grown into iconic pop culture mainstays and memes.

corcaigh07

Radiosonde wrote: »

I think Coppola discussed his and Puso's ideas for a Part IV (which wouldn't seem to make much sense, given Michael's story was definitively concluded) on the commentary track of the DVD trilogy...then later ruled it out and later still ruled it back in again. I guess that one is probably going to end up being made at some stage, given the current fetish for remakes and reboots.

I would dig it out to confirm if i could but Part 4 was going to be mostly about the fall of the family as Andy Garcia's character takes the business into the Drug trade.

hard to imagine a part 4 without Al Pacino though, even in the third part, he held a largely poor movie together