"Hey, everybody - c'mon, pay attention" - thoughts on GODFATHER, II 1941 flashback (1 Viewer)

[buttmunker]

This small scene seems to be a favorite amongst Godfather fans, and for good reason: Part II showed the decline of the Corleone Family. Michael's downfall was his coldness, much unlike his father or even his oldest brother Santino, who could be cruel, but also had a very big heart. Michael's heart was surrounded by stone, mostly because of his resentment of being put in the situation of having to handle the Family Business, against his will. His love of his father turned the tide in that respect, despite Michael's lofty ambitions. The short flashback scene, presented at the end of "Part II," showed the Corleone's together on the day of Vito Corleone's birthday - December 7, 1941, the day the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor - during happier times.

Without describing the scene in great detail, as this is being written for people who have seen the scene many, many times, I will mention that it shows the majority of the characters killed off in the first film - Santino, Tessio, and Carlo.

Myself, the first time I saw it was on a video tape my mother recorded off the TV, called "A Novel For Television," and when I saw this scene, I thought it was one of the deleted scenes. I didn't realize that it was a real part of "Part II," and when I did realize it, that made the scene even more special to me. Imagine bringing back dead characters for a sequel - I don't think that's ever really been done before, and I think it was genius!

My negative critiques about the scene are small.

-One post in another thread wrote that, according to the Godfather timeline, Connie would have been 14 in 1941. Would Santino really have brought Carlo around to hook up with his 14-year old sister?

-the makeup artists and hairdressers didn't look at the first film long enough to remember how they made up Carlo, Santino, Connie, and Tom to make them look as they would have in 1941. Firstly, the actor Giavani Russo who played Carlo apparently put on a little weight between 1972 and 1974, and didn't have the ambition to lose it for this scene. If you'll notice, his face is much puffier than it should have been, considering that he looked much thinner in the first film, which occurred four years later. Robert Duvall, who played Tom Hagen, wore a hairpiece in the films. The hairpiece he wore in the 1941 scene was too receded to be believed - he had more hair in 1945! That was just sloppy. Plus, Duvall looked absolutely exhausted in this scene - considering how terrible he looked, they should have given him a few days rest before filming this scene. My beefs with the appearances of both Connie and Santino have to do with their hair. In "Part I," Santino's hair had an almost effeminine beauty to it. In the 1941 scene, it was very nappy and bushy. Connie's hair in "Part I" was very flat, very mousy. In the 1941 scene, it had a lot of body, much like in the rest of "Part II," which didn't do much to make her appear "younger."

I thought the story arc for this flashback scene was okay. It helped establish Michael's self-aliennation from his family by joining the armed forces during the war; it showed how Carlo came to know the Corleones; it showed how Tom and Santino were really at the top of their game, even during this period of peace in their lives. The story for this scene could have been worse, I'm sure it could have been better, but it was okay. They had to change the birth date of Vito Corleone in order for this scene to make sense (in "Part I," his birth date wasn't December).

What are your thoughts on this flashback scene?

 

[Ben Osborne]

I think it's a great scene, although I've never thought about why it's in the movie or what the point of it is. I'm sure it has a reason, I've just never thought about it.

My favorite aspect of the scene is when Vito arrives. Although he doesn't appear on camera, he still manages to be a powerful presence due to the viewers' memory of him from the first movie and from the way the characters react to his arrival. Is it true that the only reason he doesn't appear is because of Brando's monetary demands, or am I thinking of something else (Superman II)? In any case, not showing him on camera was the right decision, as it adds to Vito's legendary aura. A great example of how less can be more.

I have to say, I never noticed the continuity issues that you mention, but I'm disappointed the the filmmakers didn't take more care to ensure seamlessness.

 

[BrettGallman]

This is absolutely my favorite scene of the Godfather saga.

I think it presents an interesting look at Michael and his relationship with both his country and his family. I believe Sonny reminds him that his "country is not his blood," which, when juxtaposed with Fredo's death, is powerful. It's interesting that the third film (as well as the second) actually shows that Michael will do anything to protect his blood; however, at the same time, one can argue that his efforts to become legit are an attempt to conform to standards set by society. Of course, Fredo's fate complicates all of this (or perhaps represents the crux of this struggle in a way).

It's interesting that this thread was created because I'm actually working on a term paper on Italian-American identity politics, and, in one of the sections, I consider "The Godfather" saga to be a struggle between honoring one's blood and heritage while attempting to also become American in some way, which this scene perfectly illustrates.