Why is Vito shown to be too good in the godfather?

Is Vito Corleone in the godfather part 1 and 2 shown to be too good. I mean he kills Famucci and Don cicci for survival and vengence but hes personality is shown to be a humble man. He is never shown exploiting the community and beating people up because they wont pay him (a bit odd for a mafiso). The only scene that comes close is the rent scene where Vito makes the rent payer grovel. I always saw this as an act of bullying and intimidating the rent man but watching it again its supposed to be funny.

The ultimate question i have is that Making Vito too good in the movie it makes it hard to jugde him as a bad man but sometimes i see him as a hero who is helping the community but shouldnt they have sown Vito exploiting the community (beating people up because the wont pay) as he was a mafiso.

Vito was an old school gentleman, and he used his demeanor to his advantage. This doesn't change the fact that beneath that was a detemined man who would go to whatever lengths necessary to have his way. Look at Luca Brazi's back story in the novel to get an idea of what Vito allowed.

But what about the movie on its own, isnt it showing Vito to be too good because i'm sure any member of the mafia should be shown to be greedy and ruthless which i dont think the movie shows Vito to be.

Vito was a criminal, but one who had his own set of morals and stuck to them. A criminal none the less, but at least he tried to minimize damage, unlike criminals today.

And who's being naive... Vito is no different from half the politicians in office today.

Well, if part 1 did romantacize the mafia, FFC went out of his way to NOT romantacize it in the 2 sequels, especially part 3. By the end of the saga, no one wanted to be Michael Corleone.

But what about Vito in part 2, isnt that romantacized?

I didn't think so. Would you call killing your own brother "romantic?"

I'm talking about Vito not mike.

Let's face it: Vito was a piece of crap. He flaunted society's laws and peole's wellbeing to get what he wanted. He showed disgust at the prospect that Woltz was having a sexual relationship with a 12 year old girl, but I bet that there were members of his family or people under his family's protection who dealt in child pornogaphy. Don't forget what he told Sollozzo: "It makes no difference to me what a man does for a living.."

How was it romanticized? It was presented pretty straight forward.

Not ruthless?

"Give this to a jew congressman not in our district."

"cut of Woltz' horse's head for Johnny."

"Ok you killed my son so I need Michael back, and I will compromise on the drug business, since we'll onloy be selling it to blacks."

"I will never break the peace, (but why do you think I am bringing Michael home?)"

"I'll take money from Tessio and Clemenza, use it to set Don Ciccio up,shoot him several times, and once in the mouth, and then steal the money from his wallet."

If that's not ruthless....te salute Don Corleone

Very well put, Don T. Vito did not believe in kumbaya.

Of course, who knows what Puzo was trying to say with his novel. There is a certain dignity that attaches to Vito because he's shown as a family man who couldn't bring himself to murder his son in law who betrayed his son, who was hunted as a child and thrown into the milieu that was America at the time, that pretty much had to fend for himself, and he is a self-made, rag to riches story. Since the movie is based on the novel, ta-duh.

Even in the novel when Vito does actually murder someone himself, it's because that guy was a continuing threat to him. So, one almost feels sympathy for him. Bu the truth is, he was almost the devil himself. I don't see how else Puzo or FFC could have played it.

Basically he's what's called a "nuanced character."

well put and thanks for sort of making it clear, i think the only thing we can say about Vito is that he is a criminal and therefore a bad guy regardless of how we sympathize with Vito we have to remember that he is still involved in illigel activities which doesnt make him good.

Vito is nuanced, but only seems like a good guy if you're not paying much attention.

In his very first scene, you see him humiliate Bonasera merely because Bonasera "sided" with legitimate society over underworld connections.

From there we see one horribility after another carried out at his behest. We also get strong hints that he's homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist, and racist, at least by today's standards.

In GFII we see that his rise was predicated on the killing of Fanucci, who makes no threats of violence, merely so Vito can keep an acceptable profit margin on his thefts.

That's not even getting into the book, where his support of Luca Brasi alone makes him 100x worse.

I always love the part when Woltz's screams fade out and it cuts to the next scene of Vito sitting in his office,with the screams still heard in the background.I always thought that showed how evil he is.As if he hasn't given it a second thought.Business is being done.

I think the portrayl of Vito as being a pretty nice guy, is the main reason for the appeal of the film. Prior to this film, most underworld/mafia figures have been shown to be cold hearted killers. With Vito, he was shown as a fair man with high family values.

Thanks for the replies, So the bad Vito is always shown in his subtle actions.

The Corleone business model seems to have been different from that of Fanucci in that he and his buddies started out not by extorting money and threatening local merchants (a racket that was already dominated by more powerful gangsters who would have instantly killed them all), but by stealing things like dresses, usually from non-Italians outside their neighborhood, and selling them within the neighborhood, where they ended up in the hands of poor people who otherwise could never have afforded them. Prohibition came along at just the right moment for them to branch out from stolen goods to rumrunning and bootlegging, which provided products and services that people willingly paid for even though they were illegal, and then to gambling and prostitution, which were also enterprises in which nobody was holding a gun to the customers' heads to force them to buy. As a result, Corleone was able to become very successful without really having to use violence against anyone except other gangsters, and the common people either had no beef with him or were not reluctant to trade favors with him. When violence and ruthlessness were called for, however, Corleone never hesitated, so he was really only "good" when compared to other gangsters of his day.

Why did FFC and Paramount make a familial mafia head rather than a familial businessman or politician? If Vito is a businessman or politician, will the movie attract the same amount of attention? Certainly not.
The two most important point that made Godfather Trilogy successful are that it was a mafia movie and that its hero was 'kind' and 'good' on strange terms.
So I believe FFC and Paramount took advantage of our curiosity as to mob life and goo-bad man to sell the movie series, at least to some degree.
Then the conclusion may be that Godfather Trilogy is a little misleading and against the moral of the society.
Just a thought, you opinions?

The moral stance of the movie is not clear cut, thats why i asked this question but thats why its a great movie as most of the leading charachers are hypocrites (a bit like real life). It makes the movie way more intresting and complex.

Mikes story shows the dark side of organised crime but Vitos well is a bit slippery.

Nevrtheless a great story.