Originally posted by Don Cardi:
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, 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.
