Some people regard the origins and rise of young Vito Corleone to be essential in GF II, and even consider it the more interesting story line. Others, however, have the opposite view and can do without those flash backs. What is your preference?

Godfather II: Better with or without Vito's Back Story? single choice
	Yes. I consider it an intregal part of the movie.
	No. I could do without it.
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I like that you put it spefically as voting for that you feel you could "do without it," specifying that you dont dislike it, but you just happen to like Michael's scenes better.

I like the movie as it is, but Im eager to watch the Saga where I have PtII 1958-1959, which is my favorite part. Dont ask me why I havent gotten around to it.

I liked it! Though I considered Michael's story entertaining, Vito's story was definitely an essential element in making Part II a good, and interesting movie.

I remember reading somewhere (Lebo?) that some Paramount big-wig told FFC before GF II was released that "You have two movies here, and neither one works. Get rid of one of them."

That said, however, I think that the flashback scenes were brilliant in their execution, particularly with respect to their costumes and sets, although except for DeNiro's brilliant portrayal of the young Vito and Gaston Moschin's Fanucci, there isn't very much n the way of acting.

Had they been eliminated and the contemporary story expanded I don't think they would have been missed, however their inclusion, particularly in the way in which FFC used some of them as a counterpoint to the main story added to its overall quality of the film and helped greatly in making it a masterpiece, rather than simply a sequel which might not have stood up against the original.

Intriguing as the latter-day story is between Michael/Roth/Frankie, not to mention the Kay/Fredo/Connie family aspect...in my opinion the DeNiro flashback scenes are what brought that movie to life. Without them, the film would have been dead in the water.

Which is why although I always enjoy The Saga, the last part is always somewhat of a letdown knowing there will be no flashbacks to look forward to.

Apple

Basically I'm not a huge fan of flashbacks, let alone flashforwards, which are so often seen in today's movies! . In GFII case, however, I don't mind them at all. Somehow I find them to be a natural complement to the story, displaying yesterday's reality in order to explain today's one. On the other hand, there was not such a thing as a prequel at the time GFII was being shot, I think. So it seems to me it was a good technical solution to show us Vito's earlier days. Not to mention that these flashbacks got some of the most poignant scenes of the trilogy.

I agree. The flashbacks are what make GFII that much better. Those scenes bring the movie to a higher level.


DS

It's hard to imagine the movie without them. Personally, I love them. I think that the juxtaposition of the two men and the way that they adjusted to being very powerful was fascinating to me. I think it also emphasized how far Michael had strayed from the man he once was, and the man that his father was.

I'm with the flashbacks are what elevates the whole movie, character crowd. We get a much deeper perspective on things.
I was with one person who insisted the pattern of the rug that young Vite and Clemenza steal - is the same pattern as the carpet outside the hotel room in Washington where Anthony is playing while Michael and Kay are arguing inside --- thoughts anyone?

The point of the flashblacks reminds me of one of the early cuts of The Deerhunter, where the whole sequence of the wedding at the beginning was cut - but audiences didn't find the characters, as a resultthe whole movie as compelling as those who say the full length version.

The flashbacks were GREAT...

The flashback scenes and the current scenes compliment each other.

A while back Don Malta and I had this discussion and he poined out to me that the GFII was meant to be watched the way that it was made with the flashbacks, vs. watching the chronilogical versions of The Epic or The Saga. And he was right.

The other night while watching GFII, I picked up on something regarding a current scene jumping back to a flashback, and how they really were related.

In the scene where Kay tells Mike that it was an abortion, at the very end of that scene we hear Michael tell her that she will NOT take away his children, he won't allow her to take away his family. Then flashback to young Vito going back to Italy and we are shown him sitting with his family, with his children around him, his family around him. Then we see him take his revenge on everyone tied into Don Ciccio, killing them all. It was Don Ciccio who took away Vito's mother, father and brother, his family. And besides his getting revenge for that, Vito was in essence protecting his wife and children by taking out Don Ciccio and all his people. Vito was not going to allow them to take away his children, not going to allow them to take away his family.

The theme of both scenes are basically about the Dons, father and son and their immedeate families. One doing what was necessary to protect his, and the other threatening to do whatever necessary to protect his.

The parallel plots between the flashback scenes of Vito and the current scenes of Michael are just fantastic.


Don Cardi

I like the idea of FFC to include flashback scenes. But I would have liked a couple of changes:

• Replace the Roberto scene with something to show the dangerous side of vito (as in Fanucci's murder not a fluke).
• Cut the carpet scene in length

But looking at the overall picture, I somehow was always interested in michael's story, since he was the main character of GF.

svsg, Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you just named two of my favorite scenes!! Those two scenes make me laugh harder than almost any other part in the trilogy.

Don Cardi,
You are really on to something --- how does a 9 or 12 year old boy, completely estranged from all of his relatives - develop such a strong sense of family? Obviously have his mother blown away right in front of him had something to do with it --- but scenes of Vito with his father would have been awfully intriguing too. Because in the movie, this is the family Vito creates from scratch, so to speak.

Maybe I got "into" michael's character too much. You see how impatient he was at the superman show... Not in mood for humor at that time

Don Cardi, you've done it again. As in other threads, you've discovered a telling revelation or relationship in the narrative that we might have missed otherwise.

Your post and its example illustrate what several others have also noted: that the Vito-related flashbacks exist to contrast Vito's actions with Michael's. Or, as I read elsewhere (maybe on imdb.com or maybe on this board; can't remember for sure), they chart "the father's ascension, the son's descent." I also think these alternating time frames likely gave the film more critical and academic (i.e., "film school") clout. Think of all the topics of discussion and study they open up.

Having written that, I still don't like the flashbacks!! (Hey, just because something is film school brilliant, it doesn't mean I have to like it. ) As the current status of this poll indicates, I'm really in the minority here; but it's just my opinion and personal preference. It may very well change with subsequent viewings of Part II; but right now, even though I can understand the cinematic and thematic value of those scenes, I can't help how I feel. The flashbacks just bore me.

I know that Vito Corleone came from Italy, had a family, and built a criminal empire in New York. There's not a lot of suspense there. I find the current story of Michael's life much more compelling because I don't know how it's going to turn out. Each twist in the plot had me intrigued. I just found it annoying that at critical junctures, the action was interrupted for a flashback.

Plus, each scene of Robert DeNiro playing young Vito cuts into Al Pacino's screen time -- and watching Al Pacino's acting in the role of Michael was the highlight of the film for me. It was phenomenal how he made the viewer almost literally see -- feel -- Michael losing his soul piece by piece as the movie progressed. That was all the contrast I needed to see the difference between Michael and his father... but that's just me.

As you do watch GFII more and more, I assure you that you will begin to appreciate those flashback scenes. They contribute so much to the story of Michael!

You're focusing too much on Pacino, and not the movie as a whole. But then again, you are a lady, so you are entitled to focus on Pacino as much as you want to.

And yes, we see Michael losing his family and his soul, piece by piece, and at the very same time we see young Vito gaining family and his strength, piece by piece.

You have a hunger and passion for these movies. I can see it in how you write about them here on the boards. That is why I ask you to watch GFII over again, with more of an open mind, keeping what we've discussed here at the forefront of your mind.

And less focus on Pacino, ya hear me?


Don Cardi

Good advice, Don Cardi.

I tend to focus on 'Pacino' himself more when I'm watching
'Dog Day Afternoon'. Personally I delight in his energy in that film and the utter & complete contrast to the Michael Corleone character he played only the year before.

In GFII, I happen to find DeNiro as young Vito far more attractive, more fun and even more interesting than Michael. His Oscar for that role was well deserved.

Apple

As each flashback scene fades from Vito to Michael, they show and reinforce how far Michael has degenerated and how he is losing his soul, as was so well explained earlier in this thread. The replies in this thread have been excellent!

I love the flashback scenes, the detail and activity in them. They seem to be full of life, even the dark killing scenes are followed by a scene of Vito and his family, and when they fade to Michael it is dark and moody and we see how he is losing his family.

I wish it was possible to make a whole film based on the flashback scenes.

Don Cardi, there is no such thing as focusing "too much" on Pacino . But seriously, it is the Michael story line I am focused on because that is what interested me -- the interaction with Roth, Fredo, Pentangeli, Kay, etc. Pacino can't help it if he dominates every scene he's in.

OK, Don Cardi. Your advice is so sincere and from the heart, that it's the least I can do. I will rent the movie version (flashbacks juxtaposed instead of in chronological order) in the next while. I have the saga on tape (which is in chrono order), but someone accidentally taped over the young Vito scenes at the beginning (and it wasn't me, honest ).

But remember, three other people (so far) voted that they can also do without the flashbacks; so it may just come down to a matter of taste. I think one of the reasons I have a problem with the flashbacks has to do with an unintentional effect that the contrast technique evokes: that the alternating lives of the two Dons are diametrically opposite. In other words, I get the impression that the film presents Vito as the "good, moral, compassionate mafia kingpin" while Michael is the "bad, amoral, merciless mafia kingpin."

Didn't Vito exploit women (via prostitution)? Didn't Vito arrange for a few legs and fingers to be broken (via loan collections, gambling)? Didn't Vito threaten and coerce people (such as Johnny Fontane's bandleader)? We don't see Vito doing the dastardly deeds, which to me is a bit disingenuous.

Also, I had complained that the flashbacks probably cut into Al Pacino's screen time . Not only that, but I also believe that the flashbacks, adding so much to the movie's length, necessitated the cutting of other scenes in the Michael story line. It was Turnbull who suggested, in another thread, that some key scenes are probably on the cutting room floor -- scenes which might have answered the questions we've been debating lately. (Who killed the Tahoe assassins? Was Fredo the only traitor? Why was Rocco sent to kill Roth? etc.)

But I'll try to sit through the flashbacks, since it seems to mean so much to you . (And why shouldn't it? Avid Godfather fans are natural evangelists for this film experience.)

OK, Don Cardi. I promise that the only time I will focus on Pacino is when he is on screen.

I'm going to be a little devil and disagree with EVERYTHING you said there . First, I never understood what was so great about Robert DeNiro's performance (and I'm not just saying that to be disagreeable ). He did a good job; but I didn't see it as Oscar-worthy. Now Michael V. Gazzo as Frankie Pentangeli -- there was an Oscar-calibre performance. He breathed life blood into that character, and he had no previous blue-print to work from.

And Michael is the more attractive. Everyone knows that. What's the matter, you need glasses?

But seriously, we both have our opinions; and, of course, neither of us is right or wrong. I personally found Michael more interesting because I saw complexity in him. He follows quite an arc of development from the first GF -- from college boy to Don, from boyfriend to husband and father. We see the changes in his appearance, his way of speaking, his posture, his eye contact. And we see the contradictions as well: The outward calm in dangerous situations; the inward anxieties about losing his family. The longing to trust a confidant; the guardedness from knowing he can't afford to trust anyone.

Young Vito, on the other hand, is presented as a latter-day Robin Hood. I didn't see a lot of inner turmoil there.

My two cents. Keep the change...

I agree that the portrayal of Don C. was a bit misleading, but I think that the effect of the juxtaposition of the flashbacks with the more contemporary story was intentional, rather than unintentional, as you suggest.

Hi plawrence. I think I better clarify myself. Yes, the juxtaposition of the flashbacks with the contemporary scenes was certainly intentional; no doubt about that. I believe that FFC intended to show several motifs with this technique, among them --

(1) The contrast of Vito's ascent with Michael's descent.

(2) The familial bond that made Michael consider it a duty to continue his father's business. But did Michael consider what he himself wanted, his own ideals? He lost sight of the fact that he at first wanted nothing to do with the crime business.

(3) The changing influence and pervasiveness of organized crime from Vito's generation to Michael's generation

What I meant to say previously, though, is that an unintentional result of the flashback / contemporary juxtaposition is that some viewers will think of it as a straight contrast between Vito and Michael, and they will believe that FFC's message is "Vito: good and moral crime lord; Michael: bad and immoral crime lord." This, in turn, implies that there is a good and moral way to run a criminal empire, which, of course, there isn't.

I don't think it was FFC's intent for viewers to come away with that simplistic a conclusion.

Unfortunately, the scenes and situations FFC inserted for the early Vito story practically canonize him as a hero. This makes it very easy for a viewer to lose sight of the subtleties he probably intended to convey and to instead jump to the unintentional, simplistic conclusion that "Vito was indeed a good and compassionate mafia kingpin. Michael should have been more like him."

I think they are a very essential part of the story. They are an amazing undertaking of film making, and a great part of the movie.

You are correct Cristina. People should never forget that the characters portrayed in a movie like The Godfather should never be looked upon as the good criminal and the bad criminal.

We had an exact discussion about this several months ago. Writers and Directors of movies have a way of making the viewer "root" for certain bad guys. Writers and directors can mislead viewers in their protrayals of criminal characters.

Case in point. Vito Corleone. We are shown that he has morals when it comes to his marriage vows, his fidelity, he is an honorable husband and a good father. We hear him tell Bonasera that he will NOT commit murder because Bonasera's daughter is still alive. Vito is a man of justice! Then we see Vito turn down the "dirty business" of the drug trade. What FFC and Puzo is brilliant. What they have done is to paint a character like Vito as a bad guy with morals. And it makes the viewer sub-consciencely justify rooting for the bad guy that has "morals." We say to ourselves, "this guy Vito isn't as bad as Barzini the drug dealer, or Tattaglia the womanizing pimp. This guy Vito has morals." He won't deal in drugs. he won't cheat on his wife. He cares for his children. He frowns upon the things that the average person also considers wrong. So it's ok to root for him over the others in the movie. We are shown a personal side of The Corleones. A family that we are made to care for.

But in truth Vito, Barzini and Tattaglia are all no good. Bottom line is that they are all the same type of criminals and murderers. But FFC and Puzo are such intelligent writers that they have a way of showing the good side, the intimate side of a criminal and his empire, and make you like that character. They allow you to get personal with the character. It's brilliant writing.

Everytime you or I watch The Godfather and it gets to the part where Sonny gets killed, we are somewhat saddened by his murder. Because we are shown what a caring brother he is to his sister. What a good son he is to his mother and father. That inside that temper he really has a heart of gold. Sonny is protrayed to the viewr as a lovable character. But the truth is that he is a killer, a criminal and a murderer. That he deserved the death that he got.

And some people ,as you said in your post, lose sight of the fact that all of these characters are bad people.

As for your point about implications that there are good ways to run a crime family and bad ways, well that is true. Those implications are written and made by the writers for the reasons that I have pointed out above.

I think that when we watch a movie like this we must realize what we are really watching, and who these people really are. But at the same time we must allow ourselves to indulge in the type of world that these characters live in and understand that, within the prameters of organized crime of course, there IS a right way and a wrong way of doing things.


Don Cardi

Your whole post was fascinating to read, Don Cardi. The paragraph above really echoed my thoughts. It was indeed brilliant of Coppola and Puzo to explore the psychological depth of the characters. The "bad guys" don't think they're bad. They're justified; they have their own skewed moral code. The "good" characters in GF are not 100% moral (Kay, Tom, Fredo), just as the "bad" characters are not 100% evil: As you noted, some of them exhibit fine morals in certain aspects of their lives; but they allowed the dark, violent potential that exists in all of us to become their guiding principle.

How true it is that when we feel Vito's grief over losing Sonny, and when we pity Michael at the end of GF III, we're identifying with the good aspects we saw in them. Coppola and Puzo fleshed out their characterizations so well that we can, at times, lose sight of the way they made their living and the suffering they inflicted on others.

Whoever can do without it really needs to look at the film again. Without Vito's parts, you still have a great film, but defintiley with less depth.

In my opinion, the flashback scenes are necessary to an extent, but could be modified slightly. I do believe it is (1) fun to see how Vito got his power, especially when performed by a wonderful actor like Diniro, and (2) illistrate some measure of contrast between Vito and Michael.
I agree that some viewers may see Vito as a sort of good guy who only wants to live in peace (and influence), but at the same time they really show the viewer what Michael is becoming; Vito is this sort of Klingon guy who is super honorable and all about justice (note this is all in relative comparison, he's certainly a criminal), but Michael is becoming this cold sith lord who kills his own brother and is super paranoid, which results in his sort of splitting himself in two.
Anyway, I do believe that the flashback scenes were necessary, if nothing else than for the contrast and the relevance to each other, and that good writers will distinguish certain characters even in a bad arina; goes to show that are few if any absolutes when it comes to humanity.

I used to think the back story was weak, but as I have seen it over the years I think it is brilliant.

I never liked the modern scenes of GF II, because it was all so vague in terms of storytelling, ... and I remember myself complaining about there being too little flashbacks.
But now I see the complexity of the modern scenes, and the coöperation with the flashbacks, I also started to appreciate the modern scenes.