“To make a film as elegant and masterful and as historically important as ‘Godfather II,’ I don’t think…” he says, seeming to contemplate the query additional. “I would’ve made something interesting, but his maturity was already there,” Scorsese decides. “I still had this kind of edgy thing, the wild kid running around.”
It’s true that Scorsese’s earliest movies, “Mean Streets” included, have been a lot much less polished than his later masterpieces. That’s not the one distinction the filmmaker sees between himself and Coppola, although. Scorsese additionally notes that his upbringing (he grew up in Manhattan’s Little Italy in the course of the mob’s heyday) would have modified the way in which he approached the movie. “I didn’t find myself that comfortable with depicting higher-level underworld figures. I was more street-level,” he notes. “There were higher-level guys in the street. I could do that. I did it in ‘Goodfellas’ particularly. That’s where I grew up.”
Scorsese says that he did not have expertise portraying “guys in a boardroom or sitting around a big table talking” at that time, however Coppola was already on that “artistic level.” Still, he notes that the pair’s differing life experiences led to a film that has echoes of one other enduring traditional: “He didn’t come from that world, the world that I came from,” he tells Deadline. “The story of ‘Godfather II’ is more like Thomas Malory’s ‘Le Morte d’Arthur.’ It’s wonderful art.”
Scorsese compares Coppola’s ultimate product to Malory’s “The Death of Arthur,” a centuries-old legend that redefined storytelling eternally. It’s excessive reward for a film that is thought of a stone-cold traditional, from one grasp storyteller to a different. Still, I am unable to assist however marvel what Scorsese’s tackle the “I know it was you, Fredo” scene would’ve seemed like.