GF1 vs GF2; Utopia VS Dystopia

Now it would be my take that on one level the arhcetype of the mafia world is a personification of justice. Justice is swift and absolute, as in Vito's empire. Although Vito is no saint in his actions, he is almost an ideal leader. He is fair, he is brave, he is just, he is charismatic, he abides by laws and morals (although not society's). Infact every single portrayal of him is one of high esteem, in the book, his portrayal is one of someone who simply does not want to play by society's rules and wishes to live by a different brand of justice. In this sense he is no more than a rebel.

Michael on the other hand is a tight fisted ruler, by GF2 he is certainly more of a dictator than a fair person and rules more in a totalitarian style. The death of Pentangeli and Fredo by his hands is really evidence of an "unjust" punishment, in the sense that they did F* up, but they were wrong and did repent. In this sense he can be contrasted and GF1 is an examination of more a utopian set up, maybe not exactly vs a dystopia.

I wouldnt go as far as to say Vito was a Rebel. I would say that the justice system is flawed and imperfect so... if you could create your own justice... then do so...


Like Michael said to Geary "we are all part of the same hypocrisy" - hypocrisy is running amuck...ubiquitously

If we look at the filthy face of society, Vito did justice. He protected the vulnerable. And when citizens like the undertaker who couldn't be shielded by society and its law turned to Vito, he would always give out a helping hand.

But at a very steep price.

There is a nice symmetry between the favor Bonasera requests and the favor Corleone requests of Bonasera. In the former, his daughter is disfigured, and Vito sends people out to disfigure the guys who did that to her. In the latter, Vito brings his disfugured son's body and asks Bonasera to use all his talents and skills to make him look good.

Good point Tomasso, I didn't get that. An oft-used literary device is use of "alternative" worlds, such as the world of organized crime and using it to draw a compartison or using it as a transformation of the character. I took a course and could have written an essay about the use of alternative as a journey from normal to alternative and back out, trying to get to normal by GF3.

We view Vito sympathetically because Puzo wrote him, and Brando played him, as a sympathetic character. But it doesn't change the fact that he was a ruthless gangster. His major businesses--gambling and unions--were anything but "victimless crimes." The big money in gambling comes not from the odds favoring the house, but from loansharking, a business of broken kneecaps and worse. And every dollar that Vito took out of his labor rackets was a dollar stolen from the pockets of working stiffs, or charged back to consumers. He opposed drugs not because he wanted to protect his community, but because he feared that drugs would jeopardize the police and political protection that covered his other rackets. How many people did he kill over the years who got in his way?

Yup, all of that is totally right. On the same token, in the context of a "ruthless" world, he is a relatively benevolent character, relative, regardless of the reality and he is written as such as a protagonist. Michael is the protagonist and in the ruthless world, he's the best you could get. I'm sure when we lived in barbarian times there was a similar standard, leaders who were ruthless based upon their environment and leaders who were relatively more benevolent.