Lighting is one of the main links between both films. Essentially, audiences see the same style of lighting in both films: indoor lighting, outdoor lighting, and lighting that really exemplifies a character's inner thoughts and emotions.
Outdoor lighting in the second installment of The Godfather series is bright and illuminating. Not only does it bring a tone of happiness and tranquility, but perfectly exemplifies some of the various motifs in the film. Outdoor lighting focuses on the public side of the mafia, or the side in which they seem strictly sophisticated businessmen. These business have a respectful and somewhat intimidating image. They seem as if they find their daily bread from working hard, and finally making it big in America through honesty, integrity, and respect. What this means is that the outdoor lighting really brings out the black and white of the film. There is, by no means, any shades of grey in outdoor lighting; meaning, there is no uncertainty in the images of the men that secretly work for an organization full of black money and Americanized games of Russian Roulette. These men look like respectful business out in the open, and to the public. There are no means of doubting that; and if there is, there is almost absolute certainty that nobody would speak of their suspicions of these "businessmen" out in the open. This connection can be made with the first installment of The Godfather as well. We can connect the scene in which Connie gets married to her husband, Carlo in the first film, and the scene in which Michael gratuitously donates money for the betterment of the State of Nevada, in the second film. Both scenes are illuminated by warming sunshine, bright lighting, and decorations consisting of cooler tones and colours. Essentially, both films start off in the same way: with warmth. Nobody suspects anyone, nobody comments on anything "unusual". In fact, if audiences didn't know what kind of organization was behind closed doors, in a closed house in New York (for the first film) and a closed house in Nevada (in the second one), we would've been easily convinced that both celebrations were hosted by billionaires that made it big from scratch; working their way up from basically nothing by means of integrity and honest, humble work that causes harm to nobody.
But what about harsher, darker lighting? In both films, Francis Ford Coppola manages (very successfully) to create a tone of mystery, suspense, brooding, and secrecy with the darker colours he uses to illuminate areas in which the mafia makes deals. The darker colours are a staple in mafia-related scenes, as they aid the audience in essentially understanding what is happening in the film, and more importantly, gives audiences the initiative to guess what's going to happen in scenes to come. What also creates a link and helps us understand the deeper motives and intentions of the mafia (in specifics, Don Michael Corleone, and before him, Don Vito Corleone.) The darker lighting is able to hide the faces of each member of the mafia. One could look at this in two different ways. The first way is the thought of essentially not being able to understand what's going on in each character involved in the mafia's head. This means that there is a huge uncertainty of the outcomes of each meeting and trading deal. However, one could also look at this as a way of illuminating the awareness of the audience. Not only is the audience able to see that something important (and perhaps a struggle for the character) is going on within each member's mind. Meaning, this helps us understand that something big is about to occur; and it can happen any time soon.
The Godfather: Part II contains the same basic elements of direction as the first film does. This is very effective, as Francis Ford Coppola really does make it seem as if the second film is a continuation of the first, rather than an artist's point of view of events.
The Godfather: Part II contains the same basic elements of direction as the first film does. This is very effective, as Francis Ford Coppola really does make it seem as if the second film is a continuation of the first, rather than an artist's point of view of events.