Was Michael (Rest in peace) A Bad Don?

A good case can be made that michael was not a good Don. Like his brother Santino he was too headstrong, and too aloof be a "good" Don. The two best Dons in the Trilogy are Vito Corleone and Don Tomassino. This is because while both men are very powerful, they never forget where they came from, and they have not only all the necessary Sicilian cunning,and toughness, but they also are kind when they have to be and they create loyalty because they are loved as well as feared. When Vito is hit and when DonTomassino is assassinated, the people who work for them are genuinely despondent.

I also notice that when someone asked Vito for a favor he made a big deal out of "friendship." Other than Enzo the baker, who really did help Michael out, no underling really cares about him
(other than Tom but thats a whole different issue).

Without any semblance of a human touch, Michael was just a brutal, "lousy cold hearted bastard" just like his sister said he was. I mean I don't see Michael going to some local fruit vendor (or small market) and knowing the owner the way Vito did.

Missing that human dimension may be the element of hubris that is the true source of Michael's downfall and the downfall of the Corleone family which even by the end of GFII was already in a state of collapse and as Tom says "once like the Roman Empire."

Great thread DT.Was Michael a bad Don?Hmmmm..i dont think he was a "bad" Don.Sonny was a bad Don.But compared to his father..maybe.I like how you pointed out how he had lost the human touch.He was not respected like Vito,as in Vito had respect due to his kindness aswell.Michael's respect came from fear.I think people just feared him,whereas Vito was more loved.Michael was pretty much on a "high Horse" and was Power hungry,which could have led him to being a "bad Don".

Its interesting that you bring up two Mustache Petes as the best dons. I think the idea that times had changed (when Mike was in control) plays into this.... its almost like comparing a modern ballplayer to Joe DiMaggio ( ) .

True, Mike didn't have the personal "charisma" that his father and Tomassino had but that didn't make him a bad don. I don't think any of the modern bosses could be seen as benevolent dons. Mike successfully defended his Family against all enemies and made a ton of money in the process. Doesn't that make him a good don?

Slightly off topic - I always felt that Barzini viewed himself as the first of the "modern" Dons, with little use for the "Mustache Petes."

I think it was a great touch by FFC, whether intentional or not, that Barzini was one of the only Dons that didn't actually have a mustache at the commision meeting nearing the end of Part 1.

While what he did may have been good for the Family, it wasn't good for the family. Michael was too cold, too ruthless. He alienated his brother (OK, not without reason perhaps), he alienated Tom, who adored him, he alienated his wife, and even his children. Although an argument could be made that he had reason not to trust Fredo, Tom was not a wartime consigliere, Kay was not the "good Mafia wife", etc., Michael held them all in such a tight fist that they either had to escape or strangle. As you said, SC, perhaps that doesn't equate to a bad don, but it equates to something that stinks.

I think he was an effective Don, at a terrible cost.

Rest in peace???? Michael didnt die, he just fell off his chair. Ask Olivant if you don't believe me.

Was Michael a bad don? yes. Why? because he didnt have a strong circle of trusty people around him like his father had. He was all alone and he knew it when he told Tom that "all our people our businessmen". Al Neri was NOT Michael's Luca Brasi. He was loyal but I dont think he truly loved his don the way Luca did. Add to that the fact that Clemenza and Tessio wanted to start their own families, and all you got left is Tom, whom he also pushed away and treated him with disrespect, talking about his mistress etc.

And I also have to disagree about Vito being a good don either. He was when he was young - no argument there. But his refusal to modernize the business (i.e drugs) was a fatal error. He alienated himself from the rest of the dons and underestimated the consequences of his old-fashion behaviour. Add to that the fact that he chose not to avenge his son, and you may praise his dedication to peace all you want, but at the end of the day what the other dons saw was a weaker don, like Michael told him "a sign of weakness".

Is this thread a question of Michael possibly being a bad Don or is it about Michael not being enough like his father?

I mean really? Who is just like their father? Everyone is unique.. while you can have similar mannerisms, biz smarts, cunning etc... like your father - it doesnt mean that you should be EXACTLY like him....

Lets face it... when you are the son of GREATNESS... its ALWAYS different. You are a target, you are ALWAYS compared, never good enough... you are always trying to one up the old man. LOL

Michael did what he had to do and did it well.


Now why would he go out to by fruit....see what happened to Vito LMAO

With Vito it was a case of Morals vs the times.I like the fact Vito had morals and didn't want to get mixed up in putting drugs out on the streets personally.

It WAS a sign of weakness but make no mistake about it ... Vito got to avenge his son's death (if only by planning the revenge). Revenge was everything to him... even if it meant waiting a long time. Vito bided his time, giving the Family much needed time to regroup and prove that he really wasn't weak at all.

Michael enters the family business when it is at a low ebb - and in danger of going under entirely.

Through his superior intelligence, vision, and determination he makes it stronger than ever - and stronger than everyone else. He modernizes on the fly while making more and more money and making the family less illegitimate (although not legitimate).

All the other stuff is irrelevant to his Don-ship.

In short: Great Don, Terrible Person.

Yes you love it, but you can't have it both ways - if drugs is the new business and everyone is doint it you gotta make a choice- in or out. Vito thought he could have it both ways - maintain his empire alongside his morals. We've seen the result.

Well this one of those things that you definitely have to read into....


"a sign of weakness" by Vito was more a part of the big picture, the master plan. When Michael says(in deleted scene) "Isnt promising not to break the peace a sign of weakness" Vito says "Yeah".

BUT.... you could easier insert the following lines.... "Yeah... but I had to get you back here safely and buy us some time to get all of our ducks lines up" You are our last hope... after all "Fredo...well... Fredo is... Well Fredo" LOL

Vito didnt want it for Michael... but Michael lets him now "I'll handle it" very adamately I might add.

Thats all fine and well saying that he had planned a "Michael revenge" all along. But at the time of the meeting with the five families, there was no way for him to be sure that Michael would go back from Sicily and then propose to avenge his brother, like he told his father in the garden that while Vito gave his word, he didnt. There was the chance that it would go the way it did, but I really dont think you can say he had it all planned when he gave his word in the meeting with the five families.

Vito (or Mike) didn't have it planned at that time... Vito's main concern was bringing Mike back safely from Sicily. That was utmost on his mind... once that happened it was just a matter of time to plan his revenge.

While I do believe that Vito didnt want it for Michael. I think it was a foregone conclusion that Vito knew that Michael was coming back to take over the family and take care of family business.

No Sicilian can refuse a request upon returning from vacation in Sicily.

I disagree. Neri was Michael's Luca Brasi. Like Luca, Neri was at Michael's beckon and call. Like Luca, Neri would carry out any order, without question, given by Michael. Neri, Like Luca, would have given his life for Michael. And in my opinion, what made Neri even more valuable than Luca was the fact that Neri, unlike Luca, was ALWAYS at Michael's side. Neri felt forever indebted to Michael because Michael was the one who gave Neri a second chance in life.




If anything, that really showed what a good Don Michael was becoming because Michael needed to make it appear as though he was not a good Don. He needed to make it appear that he was a weak Don who's days were numbered. And Michael was patient enough and cunning enough to pull off this false appearance and fool even those who knew him all his life. Those who had been in "the business" for so long could not see through this. And for me that's part of the reason that I feel Michael was a good Don. Only Hagen was smart enough to see through this facade that Michael was putting up. What Michael was putting into place did NOT escape Hagen's eye.

But getting back to Michael, he was not a bad Don. In fact he was an excellent Don for THE FAMILY, but became a cold hearted bastard to his family.

One really has nothing to do with the other in judging Michael's ability to run the business end of THE FAMILY.

Oh, and Sonny wasn't a bad 'wartime' Don. It was Tom who was actually a bad wartime consigliere.

Since every Don is a criminal ["and all the sinners saints...doo-doo," with apologies to Mick Jagger ] I prefer to look at it as:was Michael a successful Don? My answer is no:
Vito understood that he was operating outside the law, and was creating his own law. He would never be accepted in "legitimate" society, but he could achieve the goals he set out for himself: protect his family; achieve stability and a modicum of "rough justice" in his world, among his people; and "refuse to wear the ring through the nose." Michael was not successful. He was an overachiever. He was obsessed with an unrealistic goal: to be considered "legitimate" even though he was the biggest organized criminal in America. His entire life was a chronicle of winning battles and losing wars. He was a failure.

SC - ahh, yes brilliant minds think alike. When I started reading this thread my first thought was a baseball analog. You can't compare people from different eras. The only common denominator is results. Did Michael achieve results? Yes.

Good Don, Bad Don - you have to define. One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

How does one measure a good or bad Don? Against what standards, what criteria. Dons seek money and power. Michael had them both. So did Vito. But Vito was loved (?), Michael was not. How many Dons though do you think you'd find that miss being loved? Michael preserved and expanded the family empire. In my book, he was a good Don.

battles and wars... care to elaborate?

Just like JFK somehow got elected to the whitehouse(cough cough, father criminal, cough cough - mob help) is the same way Michael would have achieved this "oh so pure legitimacy" that some are holding against him for trying to achieve it by the letter. Legitimacy in its truest, purest definition... LOL... please.

So Vito is Joe Dimaggio and Michael is Barry Bonds or A. Rod?

Michael is Arod. After all he did still retain some morals.

In the end, did Michael really win the war?

Defeats Roth--but has to kill Fredo for betraying him. Outsmarts the Senators--but loses Kay. Finally gains control of Immobiliare--but beloved daughter killed in the process. Dies broken-hearted in Sicily, attended only by a little dog...

also attended by an

Michael was a very very very successful Don, both politically and economically. His problems generally arose from his underlying disdain for criminal activity, and the damage that he did to his own 'soul' as a result. Vito never questioned the morals of his business, whereas Michael always knew that it was 'wrong'. He destroyed himself by doing it anyway. So yes, for the Family he was good. For his family, his psyche led him to insulate himself from them.

It's not his wanting to be out that destroys him, but his being unable to get out of it, precisely.
'time has changed', and Micheal could not again get along as his father once did. No matter whether he chose to purify himself or not, he still wore that mafia face, for he had made his bones and gone onto the way of no return.
So it's not that he is a bad Don, it's that the Corleone family is due to fall down.

The Corleone FAMILY rose to power under Michael. But that rise to power for The Corleone FAMILY caused the real family to crumble under Michael.

I think that nails it. He was succesful in 'business matters' but not very good at 'family matters'

Any one of those negatives could have happened without the prior positive.

I dont see the analogy those.... Roth was the battle and Fredo was the war?? etc... etc... etc...

The mafia business is not clean business, so there is an underlying contradict that power and family can not stay in the same ship. As long as Micheal has chosen the way, dark fate will haunt him till the end.

Michael was a machine at handling his work as the Don. He didn't allow himself to be consumed by emotion (until GFIII), but even then, the power, once again, had shifted. If he were running for office, he would gain the reception as Hillary Clinton (when several consider her to be very cold). In the mafia, however, charisma isn't as essential as it is in the political field.

The Corleone Family under Michael's control can be best summed up by this quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

"The aims of a great empire and the moral health of a people are incompatible."

But Joey Zasa said, "Its true I make a bella figura"

It is really surprising to me that you can't see the relation between these elements of the analogies. Fredo and Roth represent the two main facets of Michael's life, the business and the family. Michael came out on top in his business leanings, yet it cost him part of his blood family in each case. Michael was sure to win every battle he ever came across, but the war, the retention of himself as a family man, the keeping together of his family unit, was a total failure. very easy.

It's pretty clear: the firmer he grasped his illegal family, the more his blood family slipped through his fingers.

But he still was a good don.

He took the Corleones to the apogee of underworld power inthe US. So, I guess he was. But the Board members have never been quite content with judging Michael or Vito only by their crime success.

In the trilogy we do not get to see many "modern dons," and those we see aren't all that great. Barzini fancied himself the first "new" Don, and we all know what happened to him. And another major player who could be considered "modern" was Joey Zasa, and look what happened to him. Santino, of course was declared a "bad Don" by his own father, and the only other modern Don was Vincent, who like his uncle Fredo couldn't even run a decent body guard operation. So yeah, I guess I am saying the older guys were Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle, and the newer ones are A-Rod (Mr. June) Bobby Bonds and Mark McGuire.

But when we are talking the best don in business sense (as a don is a supposed to be head of a criminal organistaion where money is the most important thing with power) I think mike was better then Vito, Vito never went in to drugs that was a bad decision, never saw paulie Gattos betrayal and also sending Luca to his death.

Mike on the other hand was cold, smart and suspected everyone. Used people when he needed and always tried to stay a head of the game regardless of morals.

Don wise mike is better.

Not including part 3 as that wasnt needed.

On the other hand, Vito was never subjected to a Senate interrogation; he never had any high level member of his family betray him; and he never had to anticipate (let alone actually) murdering a member of his blood family.

Fredo in a mafia sense had to be killed as he couldnt take it that his brother was the don of the family.

Hermen roth was a much stronger enemy then the five families and had the power to turn Frankie aganist mike but mike was still ruthless enough to stay on top. If any of the things happend to Vito i bet he wouldnt be ruthless enough to deal with the things mike had to in part 2.

Not only that Fredo was unhappy with Vitos decision of stepping him over, if Vito had talked to Fredo which i think he didnt then the fredo thing wouldnt have happend. So in other words you can blame Vito to an extent of Fredo going against the family.

Mike was stronger and better don as he also adapted to the new way, i also think Vito being an old school mafiso wouldnt be able to do that.

I agree with what many have said. Micheal was a really good Don but he had lost the ability to open his heart and was far too controling. much of this has to do with the diffrence in the times. "things change" just like he tells his mother. Women no longer simply bowed down to their husbands, brotheers didn't always love and respect their brothers, and mafia loyalty was quickly eroding. He also had to create distance between himself and others in order to survive.I believe that mike earned a reputation for being cold in part due to the way he begins his term as don. With the aid of Vito he eliminates the other heads of the 5 Families as well as others like Moe Green. This earns him respect through fear. True he didn't have the heart of Vito but he was just as smart and much more ruthless. Micheal also had a good head for business and made the Family rich and respected. It would have been hard to fill the shoes of a great like Vito (as he states in II w/ Fredo) but Mike was easily one of the great Dons of his time.

Don Vito Corleone could justify in his mind why his criminal life style was necessary. Without him finding his "destiny" he would have been powerless, "dangling on the strings" himself. But he was comfortable with himself and remembered where he came from and that is where his true strength as a Don came from.

Don Michael Corleone never knew the powerlessness. He knew life, only from a position of strength and wealth. He never knew what it was like to be under the thumb. Therefore, his blind ambition was to free himself and the family from the illegitimacy. Don Vito knew that for Michael to be a success in the legitimate world he had to be kept clean, free from the family business. But he acted to defend his family by killing Solazzo and was sucked in. Michael's mistake was he didn't realize what a tangled web is weaved once he entered the illegitimate world and how impossible it would be to extract himself from it. His execution of the heads of the "Five Families" was,to me, not revenge but an attempt to spring himself and his organization from the web; to do away with the forces that would suck him back in.

Michael probably could have been the indisputable best Don, if he had resigned himself to a life in the illegitimate world. But that wasn't his nature and therefore, he was never comfortable with himself.

\
A perfect example of how he never really wanted "out," despite his words (and even intentions) to the contrary. Sure, he had the heads of the other families whacked prior to moving to Nevada. Then, when II opens, we see that he's still right in the middle of the New York rackets via Frankie Pentangeli, his underboss, and he's adjudicating a territorial dispute between Frankie and the Rosatos.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in," he complains in III after the AC machine gun attack--that occurred while he just happened to be presiding over a Commission meeting...

I think Mike truly wanted legitimacy but his greed overcame him and didn't allow it to happen.

How do you judge the goodness or badness, the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of a Don? We seem to be stuck mixing Michael's business and family. To be sure, they are entertwined probably in a way that the business and family of most,if not all, Dons are not.

In the Godfather "the business" is also "the family business."
So this is a hair you cannot split.