1. There is no obvious protagonist, and there is no desire/motive/purpose and other tools used by traditional films to connect the plot. Instead, it is a description of the entire family, and everyone has a story. But no one is the protagonist of this story.
2. "Family" becomes an all-powerful, aloof and unspecified image. The plot of the famous horse he raised in The Godfather 1 being beheaded can be said to be the representative of this image. Combining the two incidents of Corleone's dissatisfaction with him and his victimization with a montage, with the characteristics of the montage itself, the audience will naturally It is regarded as the result of the former, but in fact no one who kills horses appears in the film. By omitting the process, "family" has become an all-round organization that will do what it says, and "he" seems to be able to To do everything in line with his own goals and norms, "his" violence is as unstoppable and mysterious as the thunder and lightning commanded by God, and the violence/criminal behavior becomes full of justice through the embodiment of emotions and rituals.
Not only does the power exaggerate with the help of montages, but all the characters in the film pay homage to the "family" that has never been named. People outside the family worship, and people within the family obey. There is no doubt about what family is, only A display of "his" powerful power, the him in the sentence "make him a offer he can't refuse" is actually what the family added to everyone in the film.
Going back to the second part, this one can clearly see the creator's intention to deepen the Godfather 1, which can be reflected in the following points.
1. The field of view limitation transformation and the loopholes it produces. The
view limitation, that is, what we see from the screen is more, less, or the same as the character in the movie. In this film, by restricting and relaxing the audience's field of vision, the central suspense has successfully continued throughout the film, namely: who is the traitor who participated in the assassination of Mike on the night of the banquet. But at the same time, because of the limited field of view, there are loopholes in the plot of the film. The following lists several field-of-view-limiting transformations:
Before the assassination - through the actions of the objective characters at the banquet, we are in an overview perspective, but we know no more than the characters in the play in terms of vision, because they also saw the banquet we saw, without any other time and space factors.
At the time of the assassination - our vision follows the character, and does not show the murderer. From here, we start a doubt with the character: who is the murderer?
The assassination was just over - we found out through the lines that Mike was looking further than us, he said "If I guess right, the assassin is dead and the traitor is with us", and then half of this sentence is confirmed by the plot , the assassin is indeed dead, the audience will naturally agree with Mike's guess, but at this time our vision is limited, we don't know who the traitor is, and Mike seems to know (through his correct judgment), at this time, Our field of vision is narrower than Mike's. Not only did he know about the traitor's existence, but he left the house immediately, and the audience couldn't help but start expecting Mike to catch the traitor and the murderer.
At Haimen's house - from the flashback to the present, the audience is looking forward to the appearance of the murderer. After the assassination, Mike went to Haimen's house and said through conversation that he already knew that the murderer was Frank. At this time, our vision seemed to return to the main character. In the same way, through the display of Mike's objective behavior, we seem to understand his inner thoughts and know the ins and outs of things
in the Frank's house - but immediately, our vision is smaller than Mike's, he is furious at the Frank's house, and Frank is cowering Shrinking like a big enemy, when we were expecting Frank to reveal the murderer's fox tail, Mike suddenly came to a conclusion that was completely opposite to the previous scene. Haimen was the murderer, and said that the murderer should relax his vigilance. At this point, the contradiction in the plot appeared, that is, following the audience's expectation for the appearance of the murderer, this line is for Frank to listen to (the sentence to let the murderer give up his vigilance can also be said to Frank, if Frank really Is it a traitor, then Mike's words can be completely understood as a numbness to Frank) Or is Mike deceived at both ends, Mike is not only deceiving the two characters in the film, but also deceiving the audience at the same time, his inner thoughts have returned to the shadow of mystery In , the audience loses judgment on his thoughts again, that is, the audience's field of vision is smaller than Mike's field of vision, and the audience knows less than Mike.
Fredo answered the phone - then, the audience's vision overtook Mike again. Through Fredo's obvious conversation with his opponent, the audience knew that Fredo and Haimen had a private transaction, and Mike was still deceived. in the drum. The question here is whether this scene can clearly show that Haimen is the murderer behind the scenes. Just through the phone call between Fredo and Haimen's subordinates, the plot alone cannot prove that Frank was not a member of the assassination. The audience has no way of understanding Mike's inner thoughts, and they don't know that Mike is not sure who the mole is.
Frank was assassinated - the biggest loophole in the plot of this scene. When Frank was assassinated, the audience could not be sure that he was really not the murderer, so the phrase "greetings from Mike" further blurred the audience's sight: from what happened before Based on the plot, the audience undoubtedly thinks that Haimen listened to Mike's judgment and got rid of Frank for him/instructed by him.
This is the misunderstanding caused by the audience's vision is smaller than Mike's, so from this point on, the audience can see two completely different stories from the plot of the film:
1. Mike was assassinated, he confirmed that Frank was a traitor, and passed with the red Relax Frank's vigilance and let Seamen help him kill Frank. But after arriving in Cuba, when Mike tried Fredo again, he found that Fredo was the traitor. After Frank testified himself, Mike undoubtedly regretted that he had wrongly blamed Frank.
2. Mike was assassinated. He didn't know who the traitor was, so Mike tried everywhere. Haimen learned that Mike suspected Frank and then killed Frank. Mike knew through the temptation of Fredo that Fredo was the real traitor. The temptation of Frank was framed by Haimen, which led to the alienation with Frank.
All the above different interpretations of the same plot come from one reason, namely: when Mike told Frank that it was Haimen who assassinated him, the audience didn't know whether he was testing or really already knew that Haimen was the murderer. Part of the plot shows that Mike's thoughts are not understood by the audience, and the audience does not know what Mike knows, that is, the audience's field of vision is smaller than Mike's. His inner thoughts were never known to the audience, and it was the same until the end of the film. No one was sure why Mike told different people different versions, and no one was sure whether Mike's behavior was well-planned or just silent. It directly leads to the fact that the same plot shown by Mike in the film can be completed into different versions of the story in the audience's impression, which has to be said to be a loophole in the film's plot arrangement.
2. Deeper depth It is
rumored that Coppola is not satisfied with his works that are good or not, and that the sales are not good enough. From the following points, it is not difficult to see that he tried to deepen the previous work in Godfather 2:
1. The three-dimensionality of women
is concentrated in the plot of Mike and his wife arguing. The wife fights for her women's rights, but the all-powerful Mike can't stop it. Compared with Vito's virtuous wife Mike's mother in the flashback, I recall the last Godfather. There are female characters in the film just to reflect Mike's character, which must be one of the elements that make the family's image more comprehensive.
2. Involvement of political/social factors
In The Godfather 1, the film is about family affairs from beginning to end, and the government enforcers are portrayed as enemies who dare to challenge the family's status. Other than that, there are no other elements involved in affecting the family's story. In the sequel, Mike's assertion of the Cuban revolutionaries, his surprise at the suicide attack of the chaos party, and his helplessness in the country's coup undoubtedly changed the family image in The Godfather 1 that seemed to have no intersection with the ordinary world. Family / Mike With their own insurmountable obstacles, wives who have awakened to their female image may be able to resolve them in the form of family relations with violence, but in the face of revolution and politics, the family has nothing to do. Another point is the classic ball scene at the beginning. Compared with the ball in The Godfather 1, there are no longer Italian-style songs, dances and characters. The only senior who is close to Italy asked to play the old music, but it became a farce of scherzo, everything. It has become Americanized, which shows the basic worldview of The Godfather 2. Compared with the previous one, The Godfather 2 adopts a broader and more realistic perspective. In this real world, the family is not the whole of the world. Avoid it, it will appear small.
3. The image of the family behind the veil of the
family stepped down from the altar and entered the context of the ordinary world. It also appeared in the memory part of The Godfather 2. The residents of the Italian settlements celebrated the festival, but the icons were posted with US dollars; the audience It was the first time I saw the emergence of the family philosophy "make him a offer he can't refuse", but the reason was that a few thieves were dissatisfied with being pumped by local bullies; the audience saw that the real reason for the rise of the family was nothing more than stealing and abducting, Loss of the loyal/elegant tradition of neutralizing violence in The Godfather 1's gorgeous cover for actual crime, the true image of the family is revealed, no longer the power of the all-powerful family to enforce justice, but wrapped in a towel The revolver's killing by killing, without the cover of ceremony and respect, the audience saw the prototype of the family criminal organization, and the revenge after that reminded the audience of the violence of honor and justice in The Godfather 1, but gave it a sublime means is undoubtedly inappropriate. And from another perspective, the mysterious image created for the family in The Godfather 1 belongs to the central character Mike in the sequel, rather than the family itself.
In general, The Godfather 2 can clearly see the pursuit of more in-depth discussions, and the interspersed flashbacks and suspense creation in artistic attainments are also unique. Although the loopholes in the plot are inevitable, it still maintains a consistent The standard of an excellent film.
View more about The Godfather: Part II reviews
