The Coldness of Michael Corleone

Why do you think Michael is so cold-hearted as Don? He wasn't like that before he became Don. His father nor any of his brothers were cold like him. Is it because of the death of Appollonia? The death of Sonny? His resentment of being in the family business?

What does everyone think?

Ace

I don't think he was ever the bubbly social butterfly type. Even before the shooting of Vito he was reserved. In the GII flashback scene of Vito's birthday, Sonny even introduced him as that droopy thing, which described his demeanor and personality.

However, the cumulative effect of a series of events gradually drained his humanity. The first event wasn't so much the shooting of Vito, but the ordeal in the hospital when he moved him into another room and confronted the hit men. Obviously, he grew colder after the murder of Solozzo and McCluskey, and the deaths of Sonny and Appolonia.

It is intersting to note that upon his return from Sicily to the end of GII, Michael doesn't crack a smile. He forces a smile in Havana when meeting the politicos and is told by Fredo that a particular judge does a mean cha cha, but that's pretty much it.

klydon, you are so right! Even Michael's marriage to Kay is more of a business arrangement. He waits until he's home, he's settled, he believes he's on the path to legitimacy, where a nice WASPy wife certainly can't hurt, and THEN he drives up to New Hampshire to propose. Forget that he left her without saying goodbye, that for years she called, visited the compound, sent letters. He waited until HE was ready.

I think that's a prime example of how Michael had walled himself off from the rest of humanity. He didn't ALLOW himself to feel. Truthfully, the only ones he loved anymore were his parents and his children. And in GF2, his children were more like possessions than anything else.

Do you remember Superman III I think it was where Superman split himself into two people and neither was like the original: one was meek and the other "dark". Well, that's the way I think of Fredo, Sonny, and Michael. Neither was a compete imitation of Vito. Each had certain characteristics of the Don. Fredo was the loving kid that Vito started out as (kind of like we all start out as); Sonny was the "I'm gonna get ya sucka after you wiped out my family" Vito, and Michael was the intelligent without warmth Vito. That's why Michael murdered his way out of situations rather than apply the Vito technique of the persuasion and a velvet glove. Thoughts?

All of the factors you cited, Ace. Plus, Klydon is right on in that flashback scene--the way young Michael says to Tom, " You...talked to my father...about my future" is as chilling as the scene where he says, "You're nothing to me now, Fredo."
However, in an (alas) deleted scene just before Vito gets shot, Michael and Kay are cavorting in a hotel room, and we see--for a brief moment--a happy-go-lucky, playful Michael. The contrast with the later Michael is amazing.

That was extremely well put!!

Which explains why it's so odd and hard to swallow that he somehow got much of it back by the time of GFIII!!!

Apple

Michael did not want to pursue the same lifestyle as his father and brothers. He was enroled in college and joined the army. Then based on the events of GFI he is thrust into the role as head of the Corleone family. This is something that he necessarily didn't want, but knows that he must do that thing to save the family.

The famous line in GFIII "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in" pretty much sums up Michael Corleone as a character. He is trying to not adapt the lifestyle of his father, but his efforts lead to events that make him a colder man.

In summary, Michael did not want to be Don, but realized it was necessary for the good of the family. I believe that partly explains the coldness of his character.

Now, Don, you mean to tell us that Mike could not have walked away from it all whenever he wanted to? If, as most of the posts (including yours) on this subject have Michael doing, he starts off as a nice college kid and veteran who altruistically volunteers to take up the mantle of leadership of his father's Mafia family, he could have put down that mantle anytime he wanted to. He got pulled back in because he just could not competely let go.

I disagree and would love to hear this discussed. From the moment the Don is shot I think we can 'visibly' on screen see his character adjusting to the role that he will later take. Mike makes up his mind almost immediately in the hospital scene that he will risk his life to defend his father/family just like he did for his country.

When Santino dies, his fate is sealed. I love watching the look on his face when learning of his brother's death. Is he mourning and shocked b/c of the death of Sonny? Or is it the death of his 'old self'. I think that's one of the reasons he snatches Kay up, to get a grasp on that past that will never be.

If he 'completely lets go' what in the world may become of his mother, brother, and sister etc??? Probably DANGEROUS and maybe impossible to get out.

I think the reason that he snatched Kay up immediately after his return from Sicily was to begin having a family - sons to carry on the family business. His proposal to Kay was passionless and business-like. She was seen merely as an instrument by which he could quickly achieve his goals. She brought respectability and compatability.

Klydon is right. The way he proposes to her sounds like he is making a business proposition. It is like he is pitching her, and he sounds completely disingenuous. I think Kay was worried enough about her biological clock to go along with him and start raising kids. I dont even think she believed him when he said the family would become legitimate.

DT- I think she DOES believe him. Remember, the last time she saw Michael was before his encounter with McClusky outside the hospital. She is clueless to the new Michael. Kay still sees him as the college boy who didn't want to be in the family business. I think she is convinced that although he's gotten involved, he is going to take over and make these sweeping changes because his father's way of doing things is over.

Actually, Michael does NOT move quickly to snatch up Kay. If you recall, he tells her he's been back more than a year before he looks her up. He waited until he was nice and settled, in spite of the fact that she had been trying to contact him for a loooooong time, and then he showed up on her doorstep. Talk about cold!!

Very true but I think he could have found anyone to continue his 'line'.
Again though, we see another visible on-screen example of his character change. His attitude toward Kay is soooo very different. She must have heard her biological clock ticking very loudly to not see how different a man he is.

I agree that Michael was never a very warm person, but IMO his coldness grows as he transitions throughout the movie.
Basically what I am saying is I don't believe when he first began as Don he would've been able to order Fredo's death. But by part II his heart was completely cold.
And everything and everyone in his life were just pieces in his chess game.

Ace

True. Even in his conversation with Anthony, in which the boy asks to accompany his father to Cuba, Michael's coldness is evident. Anthony says, "I can help you."

I always thought Michael's reply of "Someday" was the coldest moments of GII. His expression doesn't change; he lacks all paternal warmth as he envisions Anthony's future involvement in the family business.

My point almost exactly Kly. Of the kids, Michael is the brightest by far. As the novel says, not as bright as his father, but bright enough. But he does lack the the real concern for his family that Vito had. His reply to Anthony seeks to condemn Anthony to a life of iniquity and fratricide tops it all off. Throughout the film, Michael does not change; he emerges.

My point exactly Ace. I think Mike would have been a nice person and a well adjusted man had he not been forced to pick up the flag and lead the family out of hell.

I'm not so sure. I think that people have to have an innate capacity for anything that they eventually do. Mike set himself apart from the family early on and I think that's an indication of his ability to divorce his actions from feelings. You notice that in the flasback scene from GFII, he is sitting on one side of the table all alone and that is well before his family is threatened.

I really don't buy the popular notion that Michael is dragged kicking and screaming into the family business.

When he reaches the point of no return - the killings of McCluskey and Sollozzo - the family is very much intact. Vito is recovering, Sonny is alive, and Tom remains consigliere.

I'm not disputing that there were possible reasons for Michael to make the choice he did (fear for his father's life, lack of confidence in Sonny & Tom, etc.). But it was a CHOICE. It was not fate. Nothing was thrust upon him.

Like all of us, he had many layers and contradictions. But his choices show that, at the core, he was a cold-blooded man and chose a path that suited his nature.

I think the point of no return was the hospital scene. Had Mike not been there his father would have been dead. This angered him and triggered the change that led him to immediately suggest the shooting of McClusky and Sollozzo.

I am not saying Michael was FORCED into the family business. I agree 100% that it was his CHOICE. What I am saying is after he made that choice, his heart became colder and colder...

The point I am trying to make is although Mike was a pretty frigid person to begin with, and he DID CHOOSE to be in the family business, it took time for his heart to grow cold enough that he would order the death of his own brother.

Ace

First of all, the early scenes (especially with Kay) indicate that Michael was NOT a 'frigid person to begin with'.

Second, although he did order the death of his own brother, it wasn't because of 'frigidity'. It was because his brother betrayed him, betrayed the Family, and had to be punished.

Had Michael been all that 'frigid'...he would have ordered Fredo's death immediately after their boathouse discussion, not waited until after the death of their mother, and he definitely would NOT have reconciled with Fredo per Connie's plea.

Apple

Apple, I agree that Michael killed his brother because he betrayed the family, IMO Fredo deserved to be killed. I did not say Michael did those things because he was frigid, I said Mike may have been a little frigid to begin with. You can see this in the flashback scene at the end of part II, that was before his relationship with Kay.

I was just stating that Michael grew more cold-hearted the longer he was Don. I didn't say he did anything because he was frigid. He had reasons, but they were COLD calculated ones. I mean, come on, you have to have grown a little cold-hearted to kill your own brother, betrayed or not.

Ace

Mike set himself apart from the family early b/c 1.)went to college(this can be quite taxing on relations w/others who have not) 2.)vito in a sense wanted micheal to set himself apart the 'family' 3.) joining the marines and earning metals of valor while risking his life. (Risking his life on a level that Santino or any other wiseguy could never know about.)

AS FOR THE FLASHBACK:
My favorite scene of the entire Trilogy.
I RELATE TO MIKE FEELING ISOLATED FROM HIS FAMILY. My family will never understand why I feel the way I do about life, different times different crimes I guess.
Poor Mike, tried to tell his big brothers how he felt about life and Sonny tries to beat him up. No surprise that Fredo is the only one who gives him congrats. No surprise we see him sitting alone, he was alone.

As Don Corleone, what other reasons would you EXPECT him to have for the things he did, the orders he gave.

When his brother Santino served as 'acting' Don (and even before during the Solozzo meeting)...the actions he took were rooted in temprament and hot-headedness; emotion and revenge. We can see where it got both the Corleone Family and Sonny himself.

Why? Did being 'brothers' affect Fredo's decision to work with Roth against Michael? To speak out against the Family in defense of Moe Green?

Anyway...Michael had already professed that Fredo was 'nothing to him now'. Not a brother, not a friend. All brotherly feelings had gone right out the window.

Any reason he should not have felt that way?

Had anyone else done what Fredo did...the guy wouldn't have lived even that long.

I do agree though...that Michael became more coldhearted as the years went on, as loss after loss, betrayal after betrayal (including Kay's abortion) took their toll on Don Michael Corleone.

Apple

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
[QB] [QUOTE]

I do agree though...that Michael became more coldhearted as the years went on, as loss after loss, betrayal after betrayal (including Kay's abortion) took their toll on Don Michael Corleone.

Apple

It's one thing after another. Mike's character is the true "GREEK TRAGEDY" of the whole story. One hurdle after another comes along to knock him down.....Starting w/ the hospital scene in part 1 he is doing what he thinks is right(defending his 'family') but he is 'star crossed' from the beginning. Part 2 is a steady decline and hard to watch sometimes.

['star crossed lovers'--romeo and juliet]

Once again, I agree Fredo deserved what he got. He betrayed Michael and had to pay the price. My main point through all of this is that Michael's cold-heartedness grew througout the movie.

Ace

I never considered Mama 'dense'. In any case, Michael did not want his mother to endure the loss of another son.

As for the reconcilliation, I would think he went on with it more for Fredo's sake than Connie's, even though it was she who went to plead the case.

He could've just as easily refused.

Apple

I agree. I don't think Mama was dense at all. In the novel she tells Kay that she goes to mass each morning to pray for her husband so he "don't go down there." She knew her husband.

But this thing about Mike: he was, to use someone's term, a sociopath. He used murder as a method to achieve his ends as he perceived those ends. That perception helped to rationalize his actions. Yes, at some point the immorality of what he had done may have broken through to him. Call it lucidity if you will. But as Tom explained to Kay, you can't forgive treachery. Well, why can't you? Not forgiving is a choice and Micahel chose just about everything he did in his life.

And again, in what way does this make him different than his father, his brother, Hyman Roth, Barzini, or any other Don?

Because none of these people had a brother who turned traitor and had to be killed just as any traitor would?

Murder was a part of the business they had all chosen.
It was used by all as a method to achieve ends.

Apple

Perhaps we've lost the thread. We measure or assess Michael against the background of his family. We don't know the backgrounds of Barzini, etc. We compare Mike with his father and brothers because that is pretty much all we have to work with.

I think we are debating degress of pathology. As I have stated in a previous post, Michael was a sometime imitation of his father - intelligent, but not as intelligent as his father. The ability to kill as Vito and Michael did is a functionof some degree of alacrity - in their cases, a measure of the value of life. They are all sociopaths (witht he possible exceptionof Fredo) to a degree. Michael was in the best position to leave it all behind. He chose otherwise.

Michael did chose to leave it all behind, he and Vito wanted to move the family away and become legitimate.

It did not work.

Michael never chose to leave it all behind. He would always resort to murder when things didnt go his way.

'When in Rome.....

'When in Rome..... [/QUOTE]


Isnt that Line from Ron Burgundy?

Well he was in the mafia.

Michael was every bit as intelligent as his father, perhaps even more so. If he were not, he wouldn't have expanded the Family as he did.

What his did not have was his father's 'finesse'...Vito's intuitive gift of understanding and knowing how to deal with people on a personal level.

And once Sonny died, he really did not have 'a choice' to leave. To do so would've been to abandon his father, which he would never do.

So technically he had a choice, but in reality he didn't.

Apple

OH, reality shmeality

As far as intelligence goes, it manifests itself by the choices people make. Vito died saying that life was so beautiful; Michael died alone with a little dog his only company, a consequence of his choices.

Also, I'm not buying the no choice. "Leaving" his father might have seemed analagous to patricide, but it was still a choice. I would have murdered to protect my father, but now that he is dead, there is nothing to protect that would warrant murder. It's all perception. Michael perceived that murder was to be used quite frequently for him to get his way. To tell you the truth though, I don't think he knew what "his way" was. His father did. Now, that's intelligence.

True. Due to the those 'differences' in personality that I mentioned in the previous post. Has nothing to do with Michael's degree of intelligence in comparison to his father.


Sure, it was 'a choice'...but it really wasn't. The moment he really had a 'choice' was when he decided to go through with the murders of Solozzo/McClusky. After that, there was really no turning back. As many have stated here on the Gangster BB...it was his 'destiny'.

That's because you weren't raised in the Corleone Family Business. Neither you nor I can really say what we would do, what 'choices' we would make if we had grown up in that kind of world.

Again, just like any other 'Don'.

And what do you consider 'frequently'? Let's take a look at all the murders Michael either committed or ordered, and the reasons for them.

Solozzo - Had twice tried to murder his father and would surely make another attempt.

McClusky - Hired to 'protect' Solozzo. Like it or not, he had to go as well.

JUMP several years forward after the death of his father who had advised, guided and planned with Michael during the final years of his life.

Barzini & Heads of ALL other Families - Settling of all 'Family Business'; payback for Sonny/Sicily (Appolonia); preservation of the Corleone Empire which would surely have come under attack after Vito's death.

Moe Green - Refused Michael's 'buyout'; backed by Barzini.

Tessio - Turned traitor to Michael and the Corleone Family.
Always liked him, it was 'only business'.

Carlo - Turned traitor to the Corleone Family; fingered Sonny for the Barzini hit.

JUMP several years ahead to life at the Nevada Compound:

Geary's prostitute - that was Tom's baby; can't be pinned on Michael.

Johnny Ola - had to be killed to get to Hyman Roth.

Hyman Roth - attempted to undermine/overthrow the Corleone Family; recruited Michael's dumb brother to unwittingly aid in assasination of Michael. Orchestrated Senate Hearings in further attempt to ruin Michael Corleone

Frank Pentangelli - turned traitor after being duped by Roth. (Actually, Michael didn't even need to order this hit; Frankie knew what he had to do.)

Fredo Corleone - turned traitor for personal gain & nearly enabled the murder of his brother.

I cannot address GFIII since I wasn't there...but so far, seems to me to be alot of good reasons for a mafia Don to have people killed.

As for Michael's 'choices'...of course they had an effect on the course his life took. But choices are also sometimes the result of 'circumstances'.

As Michael tells Kay in that lovely scene in GFIII...he loved his father. After Sonny died and even before...he had to make certain choices because of that love.

Apple

Michael had choices at every stage in his life. For example, He was right to think Sollozzo would try to kill his father after the failed hospital attempt. He was wrong to believe that only he could save his father, by killing Sollozzo and McCluskey. Ironically, an idea that Michael himself had suggested could have been modified to solve the problem bloodlessly. The Corleones could have fed the newspapermen on their payroll the story about McCluskey being a dishonest cop mixed up in drugs and murder before, not after, the trigger was pulled. The Police Commissioner would have been shamed into providing Vito with an army to protect him, to save further embarrassment. McCluskey and Sollozzo would have been neutralized without any bloodshed. At minimum, McCluskey would have been transferred or suspended pending investigation; with pressure from the Corleone judges, he’d have been indicted for taking bribes. Sollozzo would have been arrested and probably deported as an undesirable alien. With McCluskey alive, the cops would have had no reason to crack down on all Mob activities. There would have been no Five Families War of 1946, leaving it a contest between the Corleones and the Tattaglias—and as we know, Tattaglia was a pimp, alone he could never have outfought Santino. Michael could have married Kay and gone back to college (and we would have had no Godfather Trilogy!). Instead, Michael chose to be the triggerman.

Second: He could have resumed the legitimate life after returning from Sicily. He could have said to Vito: “Pop, I was wrong to distance myself from you. But I atoned: I saved your life. And I paid a heavy price: two murders, abandoned my beloved fiancée, lost months out of my life in Sicily, lost my beloved bride to a bomb intended for me. We’re quits. Now you run the family…Oh, not feeling well enough to take the reins? Fredo not equal to the task? Sorry, Pop, that’s not my problem. Besides, you always said you didn’t want this for me—you wanted me to be a pezzanovante. Well, I can’t be Senator Corleone or Governor Corleone if I’m Don Corleone. Bye-bye.”Instead, Michael chose to succeed his father as Don.

Third: After moving to Tahoe, Michael could have retired behind the walls of his compound and invested his wealth legitimately—even putting money up-front in the legal casinos of Nevada. Instead, Michael chose to hide his ownership of casinos, continue to run the rackets in New York, and to conspire with his eventual nemesis, Roth, to control all the gambling in Cuba.

Fourth: he could have been “legitimate” in GFIII—but was he? He whines, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” But he was never out. He chose to boss the Commission and was influential enough to keep Zasa from rising (so Vincent tells us). He laundered his Mob cronies’ money through his “legitimate” businesses (maybe through his foundations) and cut Zasa out of his share. He chose to go to Sicily and, when told that an assassin "who never fails" is gunning for him, he arrays his beloved ex-wife and daughter around him in a prominent box at the opera.

Michael actively chose the Mob life each and every time. Disaster resulted each and every time. Michael succeeded--in turning everything he touched into death, including his own.

"I told you I can handle it, I'll handle it" implies that Mike had the choice to not whack the 5 families. Vito surely gave him plan B, but Mike agreed to go along with plan A and all the consequences that would follow.

I agree with Turnbull except that I don't think Mike could have ever told his pop 'handle it yourself, im outta here'(never leave a man behind).

And I still think that Mike always had the intent of getting out/becoming legit. Problem is that he was soooo competitive that it was not good enough just to 'get out/become legit', he had to 'get out/become legit' to the VERY best of his abilities. Thus whacking the 5 families, conglomerating a gambling empire and fighting against the vatican.

In the end this competitive fire burned him, he flew himself and 'the family' too close to the sun when he could have turned back long before(after part 2 for example).

No, he didn't. Still, he agreed to cooperate with Roth in some way after being told his brother was being 'tough on negotiations'. That alone indicates full knowledge that he was working against Michael. Traitor.

Michael was disconnected as well...although due to circumstances around him he eventually became connected.

In terms of the films, I think the Family and then Michael...did with Fredo what they could. He had to have some kind've inclusion in 'the Business'...otherwise he would not have been sitting in on the meeting with Solozo. I suppose it would've been after Vito's shooting that they came to figure him as a lost cause in terms of anything important. Off to Vegas...

As for Turnbull's very impressive post...Michael of course DID have the 'choice' to turn his back on his father & the Business once returning from Sicily, he was after all a free man. But by then too many things had happened. Sonny's death and Appolonia's ... he was way to far in and his father needed him. The Family needed him. By then, he was truly 'with them'. So again, he had the choice just as we all have the 'choice' to go to work on a warm, sunny morning or head for the beach. But we do what we have to do...and Michael did what he had to do. He didn't really have a choice.

Apple

Very insightful observation, Apple. And, as you know, the novel is even more explicit. Very early on, Puzo writes that Fredo was not expected to succeed his father because (I believe, not having the novel in front of me) he lacked "force." After his (apparent) nervous breakdown following Vito's shooting, someone suggests Fredo be included in the planning for revenge. But then Tom (or Sonny, I forget) says, "Leave him out of this, leave him out of everything" [emphasis added]. He certainly was.

Apple and Turnbull's posts raise a point that I find very interesting. That is whether Fredo actually had a larger role in the business before Vito was shot and that his actions proved he wasn't up to the task.

To sum up Michael, he is fiercely loyal to his family and will do anything, however wrong (putting it loosely), to protect the Corleone name.

I sort of feel that Michael feels like he has the weight of the world on his shoulders and in a sense he does. He felt that he had so save the family, he felt that he had to kill Solozzo and McCluskey.

I think Vito knew that Fredo had serious limitations, but he never figured that Fredo would be dumb enough to do what he ended up doing. Fredo was included in the Sollozzo meeting, and the Don fully understood that Fredo would never dare say a word during the meeting (if he even understood what was going on). At that point Sonny was the heir apparent, and if you look at how wveryone was seated in the room, Santino has a very prominent position, while Fredo is less prominent than Tom. It is Santino who shoots his mouth off, and who ghets rebuked.

I think Vito figured that Fredo could just be a kind of hanger on, and sort of a non entity. I believe Vito knew Fredo was limited because in his speech to Michael at the end of the movie he tells Michael he knew Santino would have to "go through" all of this and that he never expected that Michael would have to. When he mentions Fredo (who you would think would have been #2 to Sonny (when in fact Tom was) the Don simply says "Fredo was....well...." and he moves on. This tells us the Don knew well that Fredo could never have been the head of the family.

As many have pointed out, I think it's pretty clear from the novel and the film that Fredo was had limitations that the family members recognized. Keep in mind that from the book and the film, we learn that the only son in whom Vito really wanted to invest was Michael. Remember how he allowed sonny to become involved in the family business under Clemenza's tutelige, but Clemenza saw what the Don really wanted, and used Sonny primarily as a bodyguard for his father? Also, remember how the Don let Sonny handle the situation with the furnace repair guys and how the Don was no satisified with the way Sonny handled it. On the other hand, the Don expresses surprise at Fredo's talent for running a hotel, but almost in the same breath disdains his son's usefulness ("What for? My wife can cook our meals.") and his unnatural proclivity for sex. Mike, onthe other hand, the Don wants to invest extensively in Micahel's future whether as part of hte family or as a poitician.

Regardless of Michael's reason and rationalizations, he could walk away from it all at any time without endangering his blood family. He chose not to. He wanted, instead, to leave it all behind (perhaps) on his own terms and that kept his family in danger.

I don't think he had a 'larger' role in the business at the time of Vito's shooting...more likely that up to then he was still included in Family Business in the hopes he might eventually be more useful.

After all, it was Fredo who ended up offering to drive his pop home after Paulie called in 'sick'. Had he had a role more befitting of one of the Don's sons...that task would surely have fallen to someone else.

Which makes it all the more ironic that, years later he was complaining to Michael about: "...Send FREDO off to do this, send FREDO off to do that! Let FREDO to take care of some Mickey Mouse night club somewhere! Send FREDO to pick somebody up at the airport...!!"

Apple

I still feel there was some sort of hope for Fredo before the Don's assassination. I suppose hope is a very optimistic word when it comes to discussing Fredo, however as we have discussed in this thread, he is present at the Solozzo's meeting even though he says nothing and is present when the war council briefs Vito after he returns home. It's a possibility that in terms of the motive for sending Fredo to Las Vegas is that the family finally realized that Fredo would amount to nothing in his present role.

Paulie was the driver. Fredo said he didn't mind getting the car this time. I think Fredo acted as his father's bodyguard which was probably his regular job in the family. It was one where the Don could keep a watch on this one son of his whom he probbaly did not have much hope for.

When I think of Fredo, I think about Mikey in the TV series American Chopper. He and Fredo are relatively harmless guys, apparently not that bright, show little interest in the family business, but are thought of fooindly by their respective fathers.

Ya think....?????

Some 'bodyguard'...

Anyway, in terms of 'getting the car this time' in lieu of the 'out sick' Paulie...one would think that in a Family with the stature of the Corleones, there would be a stand-by driver for just this case. The 'stand-by' driver ended up being Fredo, probably because unlike Santino, he had nothing more important to do than 'observe pop at the office'.

Apple

My point exactly.

I wouldn't necessarily take that as an insult. Michael could have meant its not easy being the son of such a great and powerful man. Big shoes to fill.

Ace

I think at that point, Michael was talking more about himself than Fredo--about how hard it was for Michael to be Vito's son. If so, it'd be a rare crack in that cold facade.

TB, I agree but o you think this was a shot at Vito? Or is it just a statement due to who Vito was?

If Michael really was talking about himself, it might have been an admission that he wasn't the man his father was.

I agree 100%.

Does this thought contribute to Michael's coldness towards the end of GFII?

Not that I think this quote from III would escape your eye, but doesn't this at least give some sort of credence to the notion that Mike was forced into the life.........? "I swore I would never be, a man like him – but I loved him. And he was in danger; what could I do? And then later, you were in danger. Our children, were in danger. Look at it."

What could he do? I believe him in this scene, I don't think he is disillusioned. While I agree that Mike's competitive nature made it impossible for him to be a 'half-ass' don, I think that Puzo/FFC's intention was to write his character as one who was forced into the life he led.

I also think that Vito was forced into the life by his birth into the pezzonovante system and later by his life as a poverty stricken Italian-immigrant in NYC.

I'm kind of "on the fence" about this topic.

I will say this - When were Kay and the children in danger ?

Since when are the innocent wives and children of gangsters in the American Mafia put into the line of fire ?
I'm sure there are instances, but they are few and far between.

Michael said this to himself so often, that he eventually believed it. He had to blame someone, but he could never actually blame homself.

I do believe that Michael believed he had no choice. However, I agree with Turnbull, in that he had a window, albeit a short one, to escape the life while Vito was still alive.

After the Tahoe hit, of course.

This awnser seems easy to me. Mike says to Frankie concerning the Tahoe hit..."In my home....in my bedroom, where my WIFE sleeps....where my CHILDREN come to play w/ their toys."

If someone shoots up your bedroom it's time to grab the revolver. Mike leaves Tom in charge, saying..."I'm trusting you with the lives of my WIFE and my CHILDREN.

He then leaves to meet w/ Roth and Pentangeli(the potential assassins) to put them in check, and delay any further attempts they may have in mind. After all, if the assassins will shoot up his bedroom and cause him to shield his wife from bullets, who's to say they won't try something more drastic....

******
As for Micheal's quest for legitimacy

After Kay calls him out for his five year legitimacy-plan NOT working, he say's...."I know, I'm trying darling," I can't see any reason to think that Mike did not think the gambling plans w/ Roth would lead to legitimacy. He thought that the Corleone monopoly on legalized gambling would in fact lead to long last legitimacy. I believe that as Mike dances with Kay at the party he believes Johnny's message about Roth going along w/ the Klingman 'move out' to be true. He thinks that as soon as the move to legalized gambling goes through the Corleones will be legit....But....the next scene in the movie proves him wrong. It's all a dream, b/c Roth sends gunmen to kill Mike. Mike's dreams of legitimacy are just that, a dream. The quest will go on, and on....

Okay Ice, I'll go along with that.

Although, if Kay and the children were harmed, I don't really think it would have been deliberate.

But, as I said, I'll go along with it, because it's a sad fact of life that in any war, there is bound to be collateral damage.

As far as Michael's quest for legitimacy, by Godfather Part 2 it was too late.

The point that Turnbull made, and the point that I was responding to, was that Michael still had a window of opportunity to escape the life when he came home from Sicily, while Vito was still alive.

I still agree with Turnbull that Michael could have approached Vito and I'd have to believe that Vito could have made a deal for him to be peacefully let out, free to go his own way in life.

Then what becomes of the Corleone crime family after Vito?

To me, that seems like pure speculation. Doesn't mean it isn't the most likely scenario, but it's still speculation.

The facts of the case are that Mike told Kay....My pop was injured, I had to protect him. What else could I do? Then...Roth double crossed me and my plans of legitimacy went through the window with the bullets he shot at me. What could I do? I had to protect my family.

Now...if we are going to assume that this is either disillusionment on his part, or that it was another of his lies to Kay, fine. But...I believe him. I don't think he's lying to himself or to her.

Even before I saw 3, I always assumed that Mike's involvement was forced on him. Perhaps he could have pulled the plug and gotten out, but....once your in there's no getting out. Am I wrong about this? Are we to assume that Mike(or anyone for that matter) can really leave?

I still watch the movies with the idea that Mike's life in the 'family' has been forced on him. It's not his plan, not his intention. He's doing what he has to do and what he was forced to do. Like TB says all the time, the hospital scene in 1 is when Mike's life in the 'family' begins. I find it hard to believe that he or anyone else(Vito) ever thought there was a chance of him turning back. Once you're in you're in....

You make a valid point Ice, but the thing is, if we're going to get technical about the rules, which neither Puzo nor FFC never did, we don't know, and we'll never know, if Michael was made after Sicily.

The mob's long standing rule of "once you're in, there's no getting out", applies to it's made members, not it's associates.

I was looking at it from the point of view that Michael could have approached Vito before he was formally inducted into the family. His bloodright would not have precluded him from being formally made into the family.

So I'll stick to my guns. Michael could have asked out, before he was ever officially in.

You're all forgetting one thing.....


"It's the way pop wanted it."




Don Cardi

Michael didn't WANT out!! He was IN, for life. He held his father's hand, and he said, I'm with you now, Pop. When the family was threatened, the "real" Michael surfaced, and it was a Michael that wanted revenge, no matter the price. As Vito says frequently in the novel, Every man has one destiny. This was Michael's. That destiny was cemented with the deaths of Sonny and Appolonia. He could've backed out when he came home, let Tessio and Clemenza take over the family, but he didn't. He wanted to take charge, plot his revenge, and then grow his source of power.

As for being legitimate, he couldn't. Even after his attempts at justifying his choices in GF3, what does he do? Kneeling at Don Tomassino's coffin after his confession, he swears that if he has one more chance, he will sin no more. And then he promptly rises, turns, and gives Vincent the order. And he paid the ultimate price.

Yes SB !

That's exactly what I'm saying, that there was a window where he could have backed out, but he didn't. He didn't, because he didn't want to. Michael wanted power, Michael NEEDED to be a powerful man.

Once he got the actual taste of that power, there was no way he was ever going to relinquish it.

Michael's choice was whether to be in Rome or not.

I know I'm not supposed to compare novel/movie in this forum, but....the novel does briefly mention Michael having a 'made' ceremony of sorts after the Sollozo shooting. Seems to me that associates would especially have to take the vow b/c they could bring the whole operation down if they ever turned state. And I don't think Vito could have pulled Mike out of the family after Sicily b/c as Don Tomassino says ...'your enemies know you're here.' There were enough ppl who knew that Mike was involved, enough ppl that knew Mike had pulled the trigger and was now 'one of them.' I don't think it would sit too well w/ the other dons if Mike decided to 'dangle his toes in the water' and then leave.

I don't think there's any doubt that Mike's lust for revenge made it impossible to leave the life. But I don't see how someone could get in as far as he did, and then just duck out. As far as handing the operation over to Tessio/Clemenza, I've posed this question in yrs past, and always gotten the impression that this was not possible. Someone in the Corleone family would have to be in charge, probably as a matter etiquette. If it was possible to hand over the operation to Clemenza/Tessio then why didn't Vito do this from the start? Why not save Mike the anguish and then simply let him go on to be Senator Corleone while Tessio runs the family? Plus, concerning Mike's possible 'exit' from the family, after killing Sollozo Mike would have probably been safer as a made member. If he becomes a civilian he is perhaps even more vulnerable to a revenge attack.

As soon as Mike kills Sollozo and McCluskey I think his fate is sealed. He is in. Perhaps if his involvement had not been so hands on it could have been different. But he was just too far in to ever leave IMO. His chance to 'leave' would have been the world of legalized gambling, etc. Here he could have still been a Don but would not have had to deal w/ the day to day trials of being a mob boss.

Why is this a matter of etiquette ?

Don't get me wrong, Ice. It makes for a more grand, even Shakesperean storytelling, but in the mob, this hasn't always been the case.

Carlo Gambino's son Tommy made it all the way to capo, yet was passed over in favor of Paul Castellano, then had to eat shit from John Gotti, just to keep his stripes. Joe Bonanno's insistence on putting his son Bill in charge, fueled the Bonanno wars in the 60s, leading to the forced retirement of both father and son (once your in, you're never out ?). Now, the Bonanno's "retirement" was a very rare happening, but it still happened.

More recently, there's the case of the Gigante family. The sons were given good livings, but never inducted. As a matter of fact, Vincent Gigante expressed shock and disbelief when John Gotti told him that "Junior" had been made. His words, "geez, I'm sorry to hear that".

Now, there are gangsters who force the life on their sons, I'm hardly arguing that. It's just that it's always been a matter of choice, not a matter of etiquette.

SB said it all when she said Michael didn't want out. I'm going to re-post an answer I offered on this board about three years ago:

Some on these boards believe Michael is a tragic figure. Yes, there’s a ton of tragedy in his life—all self-inflicted. He had free choice at every turn, and he freely chose the Mob life, with disastrous results. Here are four major examples that I’d like your opinions on:

First: He was right to think Sollozzo would try to kill his father after the failed hospital attempt. He was wrong to believe that only he could save his father, by killing Sollozzo and McCluskey. Ironically, an idea that Michael himself had suggested could have been modified to solve the problem bloodlessly. The Corleones could have fed the newspapermen on their payroll the story about McCluskey being a dishonest cop mixed up in drugs and murder before, not after, the trigger was pulled. McCluskey was on the take all his life, and the Corleones had all the details because they paid him. The newspapers would have given that story such headlines that the Police Commissioner would have been shamed into providing Vito with an army to protect him, to save further embarrassment. McCluskey and Sollozzo would have been neutralized without any bloodshed. At minimum, McCluskey would have been transferred or suspended pending investigation; with pressure from the Corleone judges, he’d have been indicted for taking bribes. Sollozzo would have been arrested and probably deported as an undesirable alien. With McCluskey alive, the cops would have had no reason to crack down on all Mob activities. There would have been no Five Families War of 1946, leaving it a contest between the Corleones and the Tattaglias—and as we know, Tattaglia was a pimp, alone he could never have outfought Santino. Michael could have married Kay and gone back to college (and we would have had no Godfather Trilogy!).
Instead, Michael chose to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey, setting in motion his abandonment of Kay, his Sicilian exile, the Five Families War, Carlo’s betrayal, Sonny’s murder, Apollonia’s murder.

Second: He could have resumed the legitimate life after returning from Sicily. He could have said to Vito: “Pop, I was wrong to distance myself from you. But I atoned: I saved your life. And I paid a heavy price: two murders, abandoned my beloved fiancée, lost months out of my life in Sicily, lost my beloved bride to a bomb intended for me. We’re quits. Now you run the family…Oh, not feeling well enough to take the reins? Fredo not equal to the task? Sorry, Pop, that’s not my problem. Besides, you always said you didn’t want this for me—you wanted me to be a pezzanovante. Well, I can’t be Senator Corleone or Governor Corleone if I’m Don Corleone. Bye-bye.”
Instead, Michael chooses to become the Don, setting in motion Tessio’s betrayal, the Great Massacre of 1955, Connie’s widowhood and breakdown, and the beginning of Kay’s disillusionment with him.

Third: After moving to Tahoe, Michael could have retired behind the walls of his compound and invested his wealth legitimately—even putting money up-front in the legal casinos of Nevada.
Instead, he chose to hide his ownership or controlling interest in three hotels; muscle Klingman out of his interest in a fourth hotel; dominate the New York mob scene through Frankie Pentangeli; undercut Pentangeli through his support of the Rosato Brothers and their drug-dealing; stake Fredo to ownership of a brothel, and plan for a huge international expansion of his gambling empire through his deal with Roth. Results: Fredo’s betrayal; the machinegun attack that nearly killed Kay in her bed and scared the bejesus out of his kids; Kay’s estrangement, abortion and divorce; Anthony’s estrangement; Fredo’s murder (and a host of other killings).

Fourth: he was “legitimate” in GFIII—but was he? He whines, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” But he was never out. He either was still a member of the Commission or influential enough to keep Zasa from rising (so Vincent tells us). He laundered his Mob cronies’ money through his “legitimate” businesses (maybe through his foundations) and cut Zasa out of his share. Result: the machinegun attack in Atlantic City that killed all his pals and precipitated his diabetic stroke. It wasn’t enough that he became a Papal Knight: he had to dominate International Immobiliare by bribing crooked-as-a-corkscrew Archbishop Gilday, setting in motion Altobello’s betrayal and putting him against Don Lucchese, who was far more powerful in Europe. And, in an act of supreme irresponsibility and egotism: told that Sicily’s top assassin—“a man who never fails”—has targeted him, Michael gathers his entire family around him in Sicily, making them all sitting ducks. Surprise, surprise: his beloved Mary gets killed and his budding reconciliation with Kay is nipped in the bud, leading to his own, lonely death, attended by a little dog.

Michael succeeded--in turning everything he touched into death, including his own.

Absolutely correct. To me Michael is likened to Shakespeare's character McBeth. Not exactly like him, but yet very similar in the sense that he was a highly intelligent man, and at the same time a self destructive man.





Difficult, but not impossible. Maybe that strategy could have worked. However it could have also backfired. It is my opinion that if they chose not to kill Sollozo, then it would have still left some kind of an opening for Sollozo to kill, or have Vito killed, in some other manner.



You are right. Upon his return from Italy there was still that window of opportunity for Michael to refuse to continue in the life. But at that point, after his handling a possible confrontation with the hitmen outside the hospital, followed by his confrontation with McClusky, his killing Sollozo and McClusky, and then the murder of his brother and his wife, he had grown into a hardened man who was now seeking vengence. And I believe that it gave him self gratification knowing that he was capable of committing murder in cold blood and not having any guilt about it. I believe that he "got himself off" from that feeling of being able to kill. Having this lust to avenge the murder of Appolonia and Sonny combined with his ability to commit murder is what became the driving force in him. It became an ego trip, a power trip. A "yeah, I can really do this" feeling.




The key word being "controlling." He had now reached a point that he had become so consumed with achieving more power. Almost obessessed with wanting to control everyone and every situation that he could.





At this point Michael is trying to convince himself that he has become legitimate. The Papl honors ceremony, his dealing with the Vatican and Immobiliare. It was a facade that he put on that really only was done for his own satisfaction. Done to justify to himself that the the all powerful and mighty Michael had finally brought the family into legitimacy. A way to find self redemption for all the terrible things that he did in his life. The terrible hurt that he caused to those around him that loved him. But deep down Michael really knew that no matter how many legitimate business deals he made, or how many honors that he recieved, or how many dollars he raised for the foundation, he was not really out. Could never really be out. Deep down he knew that in his own lust for control and power, in his journey to feed his own ego, he did not and could not ever truely bring the family to being completely legitimate. He knew, inside himself, that this was the business HE had chosen.



Don Cardi

That's it right there, DC: "..trying to convince himself..." Yes, the real tragedy of Michael's life is his self-deception. He doesn't really want to be legit, he just wants to think he's legit because he thinks he's no worse than the pezzanovanti of politics or the church. "If those guys can lie, cheat, steal and get away with murder, and be considered legit, why shouldn't I?" Never a thought that he could be what Kay called him: "A common Mafia hood." (Well, not "common," perhaps, but a hood nonetheless.)

Brillant post, TB, even by your standards.

However, I do not entirely agree with your conclusions.

The main issue I have is with #2. I do not believe that Michael could have returned to normal life after killing two men. Once McCluskey was killed, the cops cracked down and the war was on. It strains credulity to think the Michael, who instigated the war, would be considered a civilian any longer. Even if Vito's peace kept him safe for a while, I feel Michael would always be considered a member of the family from that time forward - fair game for the next time bad blood erupts.

But even if you feel he would be safe from Mafia retribution, what kind of life would Michael have had in the legitimate world after being accused of killing two men? The Bocacchio confession would clear him legally, but not in the court of public opinion. While it's possible that the son of a Mafia don could be elected Senator or Governor, the son of a Mafia don suspected in two murders would never have been. The only jobs he could have gotten with enough power to satisfy him would have been connected to the illegitimate world.

I agree that Michael chose the life he led, and that he had many chances to get out. However, once he pulled the trigger his previous life was over.

Agreed. This would have been difficult, but not impossible.

Of course, there was a third potential course of action: Sonny's. Move agressively to kill Sollozzo at the earliest opportunity. If it was done in a way that did not involve killing McCluskey, this may have ensured the safety of Vito without launching a war.

Maybe Sonny wasn't such a bad don after all.

It would make no sense to expose McCluskey as a dishonest cop just for the hell of it. As Michael said the "key" was killing Sollozzo. If some story had run that McCluskey was a dishonest cop, where would the proof be? And wouldnt that just have Solozzo get himself another dishonest cop? The point is they had to kill Sollozzo, and then they had to figure out how to deal with the fallout of the "collateral damage" that was McCluskey. This was all Michael's idea, not Sonny's. In fact Tom had talked Sonny into waiting it out before Michael intervened.

So Sonny WAS a bad Don.

Wonderful posts all, guys! Another great exchange on these boards! I'd like to respond. Not disageeing with any of you (nobody's speculation is wrong on this subject), just follow-up thoughts:
DC: It's true that Vito would always be in danger--but then, all Mafia Dons are constantly in danger from other families and from climbers like Sollozzo. Vito's biggest mistake was in underestimating the danger that his "no" to Sollozzo posed to him. Sollozzo might have been a continued danger down the road. But if the newspapers exposed the McCluskey/Sollozzo alliance, the cops would have been forced to hunt down Sollozzo and either jail or deport him. That'd give Vito time to learn from his mistake and take precautions. But even if Sollozzo were killed, he'd still have enemies.

Last Woltz: It's literally true that Michael would never be the same after committing two premeditated murders. I don't think anyone would be the same. But Michael was never publicly identified as a suspect in the S&M murders, and the [SPOILER] Bocchicchio confession cinched it. Of course other Mafiosi knew, and would regard him as having forfeited his "civilian" status. But as a counterpoint, I'd offer that, having killed two guys who weren't members of the Five Families (Sollozzo was essentially a Sicilian freelancer), Michael stood a better chance of not attracting long-term vengeance than if he had. The peace settlement that Vito negotiated effectively saved Michael's life. Barzini moved against him not for killing S&M, but because he saw him as a weak and vulnerable successor to Vito--a job that Michael chose. The key phrase that you used is "The only jobs he could have gotten with enough power to satisfy him would have been connected to the illegitimate world." Exactly! "...to satisfy him..." Had he been satisfied with civilian life, he might have achieved a semblance of normalcy. To echo DC: "Difficult, not impossible."

dt: McCluskey wouldn't be exposed "just for the hell of it." The objective would be to neutralize him. No doubt the "blue wall of silence" would protect him from actual prosecution (though the Corleones' considerable political muscle might result in a case being made against McCluskey). But, after the newspaper stories, I'm reasonably certain that the police brass would move McCluskey to some other assignment, or even suspend him temporarily, to keep the heat off the department until the flap died down. He'd be in no position to help anyone mount another attempt on Vito. And thereafter, McCluskey would be of no use to organized crime--damaged goods.

TB great overall analysis of the various points of view, but on this point I would say that Vito DID understand the danger of his "no" to Sollozzo, and it is why he dispatched Luca to find out what Solozzo had underneath his fingernails. I think the mistake Vito made was using Luca as his spy. First of all Luca's loyalty to the Don was legendary, and I don't think Sollozzo or Tattaglia Jr. bleieved the deception for one minute. After all Luca was not exactly the smoothest character around. If anything, by sending Luca to pretend he would betray Vito showed Sollozzo, Tattaglia and Barzini how seriouisly Vito was taking his "no." It also told them that Vito would not simply allow the drug business to flourish as long as Sollozzo's interests did not conflict with his. in other words the real message Luca inadvertantly sent was that Vito had to be taken out.

Thereafter two ironical unintended consequences drive the plot forward. The first was the assassination attempt itself. Vito did not see it coming. The second was the fact that the attempt failed. Sollozzo defintely did not see that coming.

dt, that's an excellent point that I hadn't thought of before. Well taken!

Wow, great insight all around. I think it speaks to why we all love these movies so much. You can discuss pretty much any aspect of the story.

One related aspect I had always wondered was that if Vito really placed the Tattaglias at the head of this deal with Sollozzo rather than Barzini, did it ultimately lead to his being shot. By this I mean it becomes known later that Barzini was behind Sonny's death, not Tattaglia, and Vito seems to think less of Tattaglia ("Tattaglia's a pimp, he could have never vouched for Santino"). If Vito knew that Barzini was the "driving force" behind this partnership with Sollozzo, would he have considered his decisions on the narcotics differently. Did Vito think Barzini was more dangerous than Tattaglia?

No, he did not realize it was Barzini. He tells Tom "Idid not know UNTIL THIS DAY that it was Barzini all along." By "all along" I think he is saying it was Barzini who was really the power behind Sollozzo, and that Tattaglia was merely a front.
If you watch the meeting of all the Dons, you will see Tattaglia keep looking to Barzini to take the lead...and you see Barzini literally take over the meeting.

That I understand, what I'm asking is if Vito knew the truth from the beginning about Barzini, would he have acted differently to refusing the deal with Sollozzo?

Vito's mind was made up about the drug business, not for moral reasons, but for practical ones.

It wouldn't have made a difference who his "would be" partners in drugs would have been. He wouldn't have made the deal with any of them.

I agree he would not have made the deal, but if i understand the underlying question, it is would Vito have acted differently if he knew it was Barzini and not Tattaglia. I would say the answer is yes. First of all he would not have sent Luca to make a deal with the Tattaglias because the Tattaglias were not really calling th shots.

Instead, had he known it was Barzini, I think he would have proceeded with more caution and cunning. He would have seen immediately that Barzini, for whatever reason wanted to be the "hidden hand" in all this, and he would have immediately seen that his position was going to pit the Corleones against all the other five families. I think it would have called for a totally different strategy, perhaps one in which Sollozzo was taken out.

It occurs to me that this could be another potential area where Hagen let the Corleones down. Vito sent Tom to deal with the Johnny Fontaine matter, and that took Tom's eye off the ball on the Sollozzo deal. Tom "just assumed" it was Tattaglia, and as every lawyer knows you never should "just assume" anything.

Vito's comments to Tom seem to me to be very revealing.

By dismissing the possibility that Tattaglia could have been behind Sollozzo, but admitting he didn't know it was Barzini all along, it raises the question of exactly when he realized that there was a "hidden hand" behind Sollozzo/Tattaglia.

The obvious answer is when Santino was outfought. This showed Vito that his true adversary was both hidden and dangerous.

I agree that Vito would have acted differently had he realized this from the start. That's why I believe Vito's sudden determination to end the war was not merely (or even primarily) the act of a grieving father, but that of a Mafia don who realizes he's made a terrible error in judgment.

I agree DT. Different opponent, different strategy.

I think that had Vito known that Sollozzo was aligned with Barzini from the very beginning, he would have taken a more agressive stance. Perhaps taking out Sollozzo as a pre-emptive measure, then sitting down with Barzini to avoid an all out war.

He could have reasoned that Sollozzo was a cowboy, who had to be dealt with, and made some type of deal with Barzini to avoid the war.

Yes, Vito certainly would have proceeded differently if he'd perceived from the beginning that Barzini was behind the drugs deal. The novel makes clear that Barzini intended to supplant Vito, and Vito would have known it. So, if Barzini had vouched for Sollozzo prior to their meeting, Vito would have taken the matter far more gravely--perhaps even made a preventive strike against both.
I've speculated on this board that Sollozzo would have approached Barzini first. He'd have seen that Barzini, as the would-be heir-apparent, would have more to gain from the drugs business than anyone else. But Barzini would have told him, "Look, Vito Corleone is old-fashioned about drugs. If he sees that I'm behind you, he'll not only turn you down but will feel threatened and may come after both of us. Instead, go to Tattaglia. Tattaglia's a pimp, and Vito won't see him as a threat to him. I'll be behind you and Tatt--silently."

Another tipoff: Vito opens the meeting by thanking Barzini for "helping me to arrange this meeting [emphasis added]." But Vito's little helper doesn't act like a mere helpmate. He sits at the head of the table; takes the lead in indicting Vito ("His are not the actions of a friend...he must let us draw the water from the well..."); declares an agreement made as soon as Vito says he's willing to do whatever's necessary for peace; brokers the embrace of Tattaglia and Vito-- and (nice touch!) is the only one of the Dons who smokes a cigarette instead of a DiNobli, a sure sign of an up-and-coming modern Don. Meanwhile Vito was at his most humble. He made Barzini show his hand. Too bad he didn't figure out Barzini beforehand.

Nice touch yourself TB!! I prefer the DiNobli myself though! Guess I'm a little old fashioned in these matters!!

That is a great catch TB !

He's also one of the only old dons, including Vito, sans a mustache.

It's very clear that Don Barzini thought of himself as part of the "new" mafia, with little respect for the old "Mustache Petes".

Maybe I'm wrong, but when Willi Cicci kills Cuneo I think I saw a mustache. I remember reading Donnie Brasco, and right after Lefty told "Donnie" he'd be his guy that represent that'd Donnie would have to lose the facial hair.

Yes, you're right on both counts BDuff.

It's a semi-enforced rule of the "modern" mafia, that members can't wear mustaches.

Just like the Yankees, PB. No facial hair!

I think the wiseguys are easier to work for SB

GEORGE STEINBRENNER?!?!?! I'D RATHER WORK FOR JOHN GOTTI! lol

No guarenteed contracts in the mob!

Both are convicted felons....although one got pardoned.

Steinbrenner's a pimp. Until this day I didn't know it was Cashman all along.