Vito and Michael cutting Tom out

Were their objectives the same or better yet were their expectations of Hagen? Somehow I don't think that Vito wanted Michael to be as cold to Hagen as Michael ended up being.

It was Michael who wanted Tom out because he wasn't a wartime consigliere. Interestingly when Michael tells Kay about Tom for the first time he tells her that he thinks he's in line to be consigliere, and explains what that means. Even then he tempers his enthusiasm by saying he's a "good lawyer" ..... not a Sicilian. IMHO there's a difference between someone who is a "good lawyer" and a consigliere in Michael's mind.

Vito never moved Tom out. He had turned the family business over to Michael when Tom was pushed aside as consigliere. Vito even consoled Tom, telling him, "I never thought you were a bad consigliere, I thought Santino was a bad Don, rest in peace."

As I opined in other posts, Michael had Vito's intelligence, but little of Vito's familial empathy and sympathy. Vito definitely did what he did (as horrible as some of those things were) for his family. Michael ostensibly did things for his family, but only for his own aggrandizement. He used his family.

Michael never forgave Tom for Sonny's death. Even before that, he was jealous of Tom's brother relationship with Sonny. Vito agreed to cut Tom out of the massacre because if Tom's participation was discovered, that would break the peace. Also, I think that Vito recognized that Tom did not have the skills of a wartime consigliere. That was true.

I disagree. Vito does console Tom, but only after saying "I advise Michael." This indicates to me that Vito was on board with Tom's demotion, and maybe even initiated it.

As to why, I believe that Vito, anticipating Sonny being his successor, groomed Tom to be overly conciliatory to balance Sonny's hot-headedness.

Michael, both cool-headed and ruthless, did not need a counter-veiling force like Tom. Also, Vito may not have anticipated how threatened his Family would become. Tom was not suited for such a death struggle, as was clear to Michael and Vito.

Did Michael really blame Tom for Sonny's death? Is this stated somewhere in the novel or film? I can't remember.

I think towards the end of Part II, Tom was also pretty expandable for Mike. They really could have made something of this in Part III. It's a shame that Duvall was absent, I can't say this enough.

I don't see any evidence for that. Michael doesn't seem like a jealous guy to me.

Read the novel.

Right. The novel says: "Michael realized with a faint twinge of jealousy that in many ways Sonny and Tom Hagen were closer than he himself could ever be to his own brother."

But I didn't read that in a way that Michael put the blame for Sonny's death on Tom. In fact, what else could Tom have done to stop Sonny, except for sending to bodyguards after him?

Exactly. Vito had turned the family over to Michael, lock, stock and barrel. The novel even has Michael saying (in the context of the overall plan to massacre the other Dons, "If you interfere now, I will go my own way" (paraphrasing).

Nor I.

Well, there is no other reason for Michael to have treated Tom as he did other Tom's failure to protect the family. If there is another reason, what is it? And, no, it wasn't because Michael wanted to be in absolute control (I've never bought that control characteristic that so many Board members accrue to Micahel). Michael was needlessly hostile to Tom.

Michael's hostility to Tom arose from a kind of sibling rivalry. His resentment was shown as early in time as the
attack on Pearl Harbor (which was 5 years before The Godfther). When Tom tells Michael that his father had pulled strings to keep him out of the military, Michael is seething, then when Tom says something about how he and Vito had big plans for him Michael says "You discuss My future with MY father." It is not so much a question or an observation but an objection that Tom had the right to talk to Vito about him.

Michael's hostility played right into Tom's yearning tobe thought of as a "real brother, " so Michael killed two birds with one stone........three really, because this kept Tom under Michael's thumb, which was necessary because other than Michael Tom knoe more about the family business than anyone.

Yes, resentment on top of which, as Michael perceived him, his ineptitude. In that regard, I keep forgetting that Vito's near murder took place on Tom's watch. That only added fuel to the fire of Michael's resentment.

Agreed with both. But I think Michael's tendency for control is beyond questioning.

Agreed.

If I could edit that scene in the movie I would shoot Tom in the head and throw him threw the glass window off the balcony and let his corpse rot there for all the dogs to eat for a week

Tom was not responsible for Vito's safety, Clemenza was. He hired Paulie.

Now DT, you know very well that one responsibility of a consigliere is to anticipate threats to the family. Tom did not due that regarding the attack on Vito or Sonny's murder. Thus, Michael's resentment.

How was Tom supposed to stop Sonny? By the time he got outside, Sonny was already gnning the car as Tom yelled at him to stop. All he could do was send the bodyguards who got there too late.

As for Vito, I guess you could argue that Tom underesitmated Sollozzo in that he didn't see Sol was backed up by Barzini and not Tatt. But Vito missed that too. No one saw this coming, and I don't think Genco would have eithr.

A consigliere's responsibility is to anticipate scenarios that threaten the family. It is not to wait until a threat scenario arises and only then to physically intervene.

When discussing Sonny's murder during the past year, someone posted that Tom should have anticipated Sonny's potential reactions by by arranging with Connie to have her contact him and only him when something went wrong in the Rizzi household. That's one way that Tom could have fulfilled his consigliere responsibilities.

Another more devious (and more realistic?) manner of dealing with Carlo would have been for Tom to arrange on his own for Carlo to have an accident-that could not be sourced back to the Family. He never would have talked about it but if it ever came up he would have mentioned something about what a bad husband Carlo was.

If Tom didn't want to go that far he could have arranged for people to keep an eye on Carlo. The Barzini connection would have been discovered earlier.

Exactly. A consigliere always has his eyes forward.

They should of told tom to fix some drinks and shoot him in the back of the head