MovieChat Forums > The Godfather Part II (1974) Discussion > Why are people crazy about Young Don.

Why are people crazy about Young Don.


I like the Young Don scenes in the contrast with the Michael story and showing his imperfections and disdain for his family compared to his father, but all over the internet I read that the young Don scenes are "way better" and that they should have "made a whole movie about that period."

While I do agree that they gave me too little, I would like to know why people would ever say that the young Don scenes were better and why Robert De Niro won an Oscar. Even though he was decent, there was nothing about his performance that stood out to me.

I'm not challenging anyone, I would just really like to know someone's opinion on this.

reply

Personally I thought Deniro channeled Brando's performance so well that its chilling. When I go through Deniros filmography in my head I seem to almost omit this performance on some subconcious level. Its like I totally forget that two actors portrayed Vito (one young one old). In fact when I think of Vito I dont think about Brando or Deniro at all.

Not too many characters have that impact on me. Maybe just the one.

reply

Agree 100%. I forget too.

reply

I like this post. This is accurate. Well said!

reply

I'm not challenging anyone, I would just really like to know someone's opinion on this.


Don't worry about what everyone says. You know what you like and that's how it should be. But:

Count me amongst the "young Don" DeNiro scene fans. I love the whole prequel part and would have preferred a full movie based on that then what GFII ultimately became. This isn't to say I don't like GFII as is because I do, I just prefer the DeNiro part far better.



Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

reply

I love the whole prequel part and would have preferred a full movie based on that then what GFII ultimately became.


I thought it might have been interesting to see more of the intervening years between the end of the prequel and the beginning of GFI. Perhaps a few scenes of the early days of Luca Brasi, Johnny Fontaine, and the infamous "Bandleader."

They could also include a few scenes showing the progression of Clemenza's voice changing. 

reply

They could also include a few scenes showing the progression of Clemenza's voice changing.


[rimshot!]


Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

reply

I would have liked to have seen the Corleones during the Olive Oil War. It would give us an insight into how a younger Vito handled war time. It would also show how a wartime consiglieri (Genco) advised the Don properly. Think of it as a parallel to Sonny/Tom's handling of wartime in Part I.

Also, this is where the relationship between Vito and Luca would be more prominent. We would get to see why Luca respects and fears Vito as much as Vito feared and respected Luca.


"Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!"

reply

in the book Luca got someone pregnant and after she gave birth he threw the baby into a furnace

Luca also sent a "message" by tying two of vito business rivals up, then he chopped one of them into pieces with an axe while he was alive

the other one watched and screamed

he was told go home and tell your boss what you saw

reply

[We would get to see why Luca respects and fears Vito as much as Vito feared and respected Luca.]

Disagree.

Coppola had a lot of ground to cover in both I and II. One of the script’s greatest achievements is in doing just that very efficiently. It’s said that movie scenes should always “enter late and leave early.” Between Luca’s few scenes in I — awkwardly attempting to thank the Don and his subsequent garroting — and Michael’s regaling Kay with the bandleader story, we get the picture.

reply

I just prefer Vito more as a character. While Michael's story is more compelling and tragic, Vito's is more pleasant. He is the underdog that made it, the classic rags to riches story. Yet through all that, he stayed true to who he was and maintained principles which few could do in that business. You see how the people in the neighborhood treat and respond to Vito and how respectful he is in return. The fruit vender scene is a good example. Whereas Michael seems to repel all those around him, including his own family. It's hard to watch at times. The end shot of him sitting on the bench is heartbreaking and is a microcosm of his whole life. He was always alone and will always be alone.

Vito, as despicable as he can be, is portrayed as the hero (or at worst an anti-hero product of his environment) in his respective story whereas Michael is the opposite--a ruthless, cold-hearted monster.

With that said, I do agree with your point considering DeNiro's performance. It was good and I feel many believe it was as if a young Marlon Brando had played the part. But to me, it was one good performance in a film where just about every performance was good. For me, the standout performance of the film was John Cazale.


"Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!"

reply

I feel like I would like Vito's story better if he hadn't avenged his mother by killing Ciccio. Vito never seemed to be someone who reveled in revenge, including in the first movie. He only killed for business and mostly stayed out of the dreck involved in the mob world, including th heroine trade. He seemed to be someone who prioritized family over business, and to me, the real conflict of the first Godfather is blurring the line between what immoral acts you commit in the name of family and morality, and what you commit in the name of business and greed.

If Vito had gone to Ciccio and decided to forgive him due to his satisfaction with his life, it would have provided a must stronger juxtaposition to Michael killing Fredo and Roth for solely revenge purposes.

There also just seems to not be enough to the Vito story for it to warrant anything in and of itself, again except for serving as strong juxtaposition in other scenes. I maybe wish there was more of a transition to the first movie, as other commenters here have mentioned.

reply

I understand your point about Vito whacking Don Ciccio. It is eerily similar to Michael's decision to eliminate Roth despite being in federal custody with only a few months to live. Neither, at that point in time, was any threat to the respective Corleone. When Ciccio eventually croaked, Tommasino probably would have succeeded him anyway. I guess Vito and Tommasino did not want to wait that long.


"Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!"

reply


If Vito had gone to Ciccio and decided to forgive him due to his satisfaction with his life, it would have provided a must stronger juxtaposition to Michael killing Fredo and Roth for solely revenge purposes.


This is a Karate dojo not a knitting class!!


Sorry, couldn't resist. This is in fact a movie about the Mafia. It's not like Ciccio stole his scooter or took his father's job: he killed Vito's father, mother, and brother. If he managed to catch him, it was his intention to kill Vito as well.

I'm not a big fan of violence and revenge, but Vito's revenge on Don Cheech is quite satisfying in the same way that Capt. Hadley beating Boggs in Shawshank was.


Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.

reply

While that's a possibility, Vito killed Ciccio to empower his friend and subsequently the new ruler of Corleone Don Tomassino who would replace Ciccio and remain a loyal ally of Don Corleone well into the 1940s where his help in hiding Michael in Sicily ensures the Corloene Family's dynasty back in the States.

reply

That's not true about Vito, like Michael he reveled in avenging himself or taking part in revenge. And like Michael he was very patient and would let it fester for years until he had the perfect opportunity. He pretended that things didn't get to him but they did.

reply

Vito had my sympathies. Michael I found a cold bastard with no good qualities; young Vito was more human.

reply

Completely agree. Michael Corleone is my favorite character in all of cinema, and Pacino's performance is the greatest acting performance in history. I prefer the first movie simply because of De Niro's scenes, while he did a great job and they did provide a lot of insight into Vito, I just cared a lot more about Michael's journey. In Godfather II he really does make the complete transition into a monster, and it's brilliant. And to say that De Niro was better than Pacino in this is blasphemy. How Pacino didn't win the Oscar for this is outrageous.

Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career.

reply

Agreed on so many levels! Pacino was on fire in this film and I have yet to witness any actor touch his magnificence here! The fact that he didn't win an Oscar is a travesty beyond belief. De Niro is overrated Imo.

reply

I don't know about people saying they would prefer the young Vito's scenes to take precedence over Michael's.

But honestly, I thought De Niro did well but nowhere near as magnificent as Pacino was here. And I think the over-adulation De Niro gets in this film is due to him speaking in Sicilian throughout most of the film tbh.

reply

Those scenes would have been a lot better if De Niro had spoken English. For one thing, translations suck; in most cases there's no way to perfectly translate from one language to another. For another thing, reading subtitles sucks; it distracts your attention from what's going on on-screen. Also, he'd been living in the US since he was 9 years old (or whatever), so he definitely should have been able to speak English fluently by the time he was an adult. Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone spoke English with essentially no Italian accent, which is only plausible if he'd been speaking English since he was a little kid.

reply

I actually enjoyed the realism of the translated scenes.

While you're correct that Brando's Vito spoke pretty good English, he could have worked on it. There was an older Italian lady in my neighborhood when I was a kid who spoke English as a second language and while she had a good grasp of syntax and had a pretty good vocabulary, she also had a pretty thick Italian accent. One day, she called our house to speak to my mother and didn't recognize her because her English was nearly perfect. My mother told me she worked very hard to speak "professionally" on the phone and when she talked to people she didn't know, like in stores or at the bank.

reply

Old neighborhoods and even new ones filled with one type of ethnicity tend to continue to speak in their own language, whether in the US or abroad. Look at the Hispanics or China town, so yes it was realistic for Vito to have continually spoken Italian in his Italian ethnic neighborhood.

And I prefer the Sicilian language with subtitles used over English. I guess I don't mind subtitles, I'm used to it.

reply

"Old neighborhoods and even new ones filled with one type of ethnicity tend to continue to speak in their own language, whether in the US or abroad."

Not kids who go to school in New York City in the early 1900s. Once again:

"Also, he'd been living in the US since he was 9 years old (or whatever), so he definitely should have been able to speak English fluently by the time he was an adult. Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone spoke English with essentially no Italian accent, which is only plausible if he'd been speaking English since he was a little kid."

reply

Marlon Brando was middle aged while Vito was a young man living in an all speaking Italian neighborhood. My sister had a Filipino accent in her 20s but lost it by the time she was in her 40s.

I know another Filipina who has been living in the US for 30-40 years and can hardly speak a word of English, we all wonder but there it is. We have Filipinos in the Philippines and even Chinese who have lived here their whole lives yet can hardly speak Filipino

Prior to the US closing their borders in the early 20th century, the ethnic neighborhoods reinforced themselves with new immigrants and were rather insulated.

Ps. I've been speaking English my whole life, yet I still have a Filipino accent.

reply

"Marlon Brando was middle aged while Vito was a young man living in an all speaking Italian neighborhood."

He arrived in NYC when he was 9 years old. He would have gone to school. Everyone at his school would have spoken English or have been in the process of learning English. Therefore it's implausible that he didn't speak English by the time he was an adult. Second, in the highly unlikely event that he didn't learn English until after he was an adult, it is implausible that he would have ever lost his Italian accent.

"My sister had a Filipino accent in her 20s but lost it by the time she was in her 40s."

Instead of personal anecdotes that can't be independently confirmed, give me an example of a well-known person whose native language was Italian, who didn't learn to speak English until after adulthood, and who sounded like a native English speaker later in life.

reply

What makes you think he doesn't speak English as a young adult? You can speak more than 1 language you know.

He spoke Italian to a neighborhood that spoke Italian. And English to non-Italians.

So you think I'm lying about my personal experience? Whatever. I'm through with you.

reply

"What makes you think he doesn't speak English as a young adult? You can speak more than 1 language you know."

Because he doesn't, despite being in New York City where English is the primary language. In a movie, if something which doesn't go without saying isn't established onscreen, then it didn't happen.

"He spoke Italian to a neighborhood that spoke Italian. And English to non-Italians."

He didn't speak any significant amount of English in the movie, so it can't be said that he could speak English.

"So you think I'm lying about my personal experience?"

I'm not going to take your word for it that your sister now sounds like a native English speaker. Your idea of what constitutes "no accent" isn't necessarily the same as mine or anyone else's. That's why I want an example of someone well-known, so I can hear it for myself, as well as confirm their history.

"Whatever. I'm through with you."

Your resignation is accepted.

reply

In a movie, if something which doesn't go without saying isn't established onscreen, then it didn't happen..... He didn't speak any significant amount of English in the movie, so it can't be said that he could speak English.


Both of those statements are true, but we must also consider that since Vito arrived in America as a young boy, he would have been required to attend public school, where he would have picked up English fairly quickly. Back then, municipalities actually employed "truant" officers to locate kids to comply with mandatory attendance lest they slip through the cracks.

Because I saw him arrive as a young boy, I always thought that Vito did speak at the very least conversational English.

reply

I prefer the Michael sequences as well. In my opinion, brought Michael's story to a very satisfying and tragic close. I like Vito's story and DeNiro is always great but it didn't have as much of a strong effect on me once it was over.

reply

I agree although De Niro was brilliant, the fact the Al Pacino received no Oscars after all three movies is unbelievable. I was really fascinated with Michael Corleone's character development.

reply

In the Oscar game, Young Al Pacino simply ran into bad luck with Michael Corleone.

He was up for Best Supporting Actor for The Godfather. Some claim that was infamy-- that Brando should have been up for Best Supporting Actor, but no, Brando was an established star with a flashier role and more screen time than you would think -- Michael isn't there in the dark room where Don Vito meets people in the opening sequence(Sonny and Tom Hagen are there); Michael isn't there when Don Vito convenes the Five Families to negotiate a truce, or when Hagen tells him about Sonny on the causeway, or when Don Vito plays in the garden with his grandson.

So Brando was in line for Oscars's Best Actor of 1972 and Pacino got "cancelled out" by fellow Best Supporting Actor nominees Caan and Duvall from the movie. Joel Grey got the award for a rather limited but flashy role in Cabaret.

Two years later, Pacino was clearly the lead in Godfather II, The money action seemed to be Pacino in GII versus Nicholson in Chinatown for Best Actor (they had been up against each other the year before for The Last Detail versus Serpico.) In 1973, Pacino and Nicholson lost to Old Timer Jack Lemmon(Save the Tiger.) In 1974, Pacino and Nicholson lost to Old Timer Art Carney. I suppose Old Hollywood wanted to give Lemmon and Carney "last chances" -- Nicholson and Pacino were young, and would have more.

As it turned out, Nicholson won Best Actor the very next year -- 1975 -- for Cuckoo's Nest, but Big Al had to wait until 1992 to finally get a win, for a flashy but not terribly historic role in Scent of a Woman.

And so it goes. Oscars for the wrong roles; short waits for the statue(see Jennifer Lawrence, Brie Larsen) versus years-long waits(John Wayne, Pacino).

CONT

reply


CONT

Interesting: many folks see Michael Corleone as Pacino's defining role, and yet Pacino himself seems to have more regard for what he did as Tony Montana in Scarface. I think I see why: Pacino had to share The Godfather with Brando, DeNiro, Caan, Duvall, and Cazale(and maybe Keaton a little bit) -- but he is the center of the Scarface universe.

reply