A Roman Tragedy: Darkness in 'The Godfather Part II'

(Blog written Winter, 2015)

(The Godfather Part II)

When The Godfather collection caught my eye in the library, instinctively I took one out. Although not exactly an adventurous choice, there is something very personal to me about these films (The third one not included…). The Godfather (1972) was the first film I ever remember falling in love with. Thankfully to the obliviousness of my mum, my eldest brother Liam showed me the film at the age of 10, revealing the world of gangsters to me. I am sure if my mum found out though, she would have killed him. So, through a high dose of nostalgia, I borrowed The Godfather Part II (1974). What struck me viewing this now was the absolute darkness that threads right through the film, and not just the themes and events, but also the cinematography’s atmospheric darkness. The underexposure used continuously in those scenes in Michael’s (Al Pacino) home is an aesthetic stamp on the film. This ruthless Don is the personification of darkness, and the visual darkness is an expression of his soul. Symbolic being in his family home, depressingly his family is exposed to this plague of darkness. This technique and meaning reminded me how tragic the film really is, underpinned by the tragic tones struck by Nino Rota’s phenomenal score. In that last shot of Michael sitting alone on the edge of the frame, his family lost, my mind instinctively compared him to his father (Robert De Niro) and his wholeness and strength because he always had his family. This exemplified Michael’s existential despair and the tragic elements of this film, yet it is justice. He is self-destructive, a murderer, so why do I feel sympathy? This sympathy of an anti-hero reminded me of modern television, where I felt a same sense of confused sympathy and empathy for Tony Soprano or Walter White. It’s a staggering effect by these writers and directors. A complex, true, and human character study in film, TV, or any art form will always create empathy, regardless of what the character is capable of it seems.

(The Godfather Part II)

Touched upon earlier, Gordon Willis’ cinematography felt pivotal to the films cinematic achievements. Willis is a legendary cinematographer, and it is no surprise when noticing the expressionistic dark lighting that he was nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness”. The brownish texture of the flashbacks however is what really caught my eyes. In a similar style to McCabe and Mrs Miller (1971), a period of time is visually cemented for the audience to peak into as if they are there themselves. I would definitely suggest looking up The Prince of Darkness, here is a link – http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/movies/gordon-willis-godfather-cinematographer-dies-at-82.html?_r=0

Another aspect of the film that intrigued me, and also made me laugh in an otherwise dark film, was Coppola’s satirical representation of America’s elite. There is one scene in particular which highlights the comical yet worrying hypocrisy of the elite. Senator Geary rants to Michael, accusing the Italian people of complete crookery. Yet, isn’t he accepting there money and pretending to be friends? He is a masked crook, just like the Don, which comments not just on this time period but the common characteristic of the Elite in all unequal, capitalist countries.

A truly staggering film, writing this makes me want to watch it again this week!