Side question to "...A real man." ?

After reading the responses to the "If a man doesn't spend time with his family...." post I began to wonder if anyone else thought Tom having a mistress was just thrown in the film for shock value. I always thought it was out of character for him. He is so straight laced.

I could be wrong (please let me know) but I don't believe any hint of Tom cheating on his wife was ever mentioned in the book. I do remember the book mentioning that Tom knew the Don never approved of such affairs. Tom was always immensly eager to please the Don and would never do something he would disapprove of. Tom's respect of the Don also led me to believe that this was something that was instilled in Tom, not something to be forgotten over a woman.

When was it mentioned in the movie? I missed that, I saw you guys mention it a couple of times but I assumed it came from the book.

It's towards the end of Part II when Michael is asking Tom if he is still on board with Michael and his plans.

I think it was written in the script just so Michael could have some "dirt" on Tom.

I thought in the book Hagen has an affair with Sandra, Sonny's widow?

A real man can both spend time with his family AND have a mistress. Vito may have frowned about mistresses, but he reserved his harsh criticism for a man that doesn't spend time with his family (he wanted Sonny to hear that). Note Vito's only mild retort to Sonny: "playing comedy with that young girl."

I agree. Check out the smug look on Neri's face, and you can tell that he was the source of this bit of dirt. Another sign of his ambition to become Michael's #2 man.
It wasn't in the novel. Some people here have seen it in early scripts for GFII that didn't make the cut.

It's my opinion that despite the rather straight edged nature of Tom's character FFC and MP perhaps added this edge in to show that Tom is indeed not as straight or as good as he originally comes off as. GF I tended to romanticize the life and painted things in black or white.

The irony of Tom and Vito in the first film is that although they are criminals of the highest sort, they never really do anything that we can disapprove of. Vito's rationalization that prostitution, union control and gambling are victimless crimes is delivered so elequently we beleive it very readily.

Another insight, as I feel it is, as elluded to in the film (GF II). Michael mentions that it's harder to be stronger for the family because times are changing, implying that things are no longer as black and white as they were before, not as cut and dry perhaps; more complicated. Tom having a mistress by no means paints his character in black or white, it puts his character in the gray if anything. Even Vito is in GF II is a murderer and a theif (albiet a noble one) who if you take in the deleted scenes committed 4 murders and stole numerous goods.

Much of the first movie's resolution dealt with a sense of justice being proportioned to the 5 heads, Tessio and Carlo. However, I feel the second movie deals more with gray issues, like the death of Fredo, the seperation of the immediate family due to the very act of keeping the "family" in line and on top of this rat race. Much of what goes on in the 2nd movie is not black or white, cut or dry and this dimension along with the Tom dimension adds much to emotion of the second film I feel.

There is actually some footage that hints about Tom and Sandras affair. In a deleted scene from the party and the beginning of GF2, when Michael is meeting with one of Sonnys twindoughters who is about to get married. Michael mentions something about Sonny and we see Tom and Sandra glancing at each other...

You must remember, as strait laced as Hagen was, he was in the mafia. It was just oh so common to have a mistress when in the mafia, especially at the time. Sonny did it, of course, Fredo did it, my guess is that Micheal did it from his confession, Carlo did it, and Tom did it.

But what I liked is how FFC showed this all in different ways among the guys. The showed Sonny as a hornball, Carlo as a scumbag, Fredo as the guy you can always have fun with, Tom as the quiet hornball, and Micheal as sort of evil all through how they cheated on their wives.

Thats Coppala/Puzo magic right there that we see oh so often.

The Godfather films are full of irony. You gotta remember, by the time GFII begins, the Don has been dead for at least 7-8 years. In those years, time's have indeed changed. The family has moved out to Nevada, they own and control tons of casinos, and lets face it, Las Vegas is "Sin City." I wouldn't put it past Tom to have a mistress. Everyone speaks about how Don Vito and Tom were such noble guys. The irony of the Don's death, after all his nobility, after all his trials and tribulations to legitamize his family....he dies a monster.

Thanks for the all of your insights. I always wonder about this. It's one of the few things that bug me about GF II. Underboss- I loved your theory on the black and white issue. I've always felt that Tom was sort of the good guy in GF II, while Michael had "to do these things he had to do." I hate to see anything tarnish that image because I hold the Tom up to a high standard as the consigliere to Don Vito. It the end though, it's hard to admit, yes they are all bad guys.

AllintheFamily- I'm curious as to what you meant when you guessed that Michael also had an affair because of his confession. What confession are you talking about?

Agreed I was wondering that as well. Are you referring to Apollonia? Cus she doesn't fully, really count, cus he did fall in love with her and couldn't see anything except her, although he was a bit unfaithful, it's implied, specifically in the book he did fall directly in love with her, in a real, divine way, like a bolt from heaven.

Yes, I agree, Tom comes across as cool and rational, but he was just as diabolical as the rest. Think about how they influenced Jack Woltz with the horse's head. Although Tom never seemed to lose his cool when Woltz was yelling at him, putting the head in the bed had to be Tom's idea because he is the only one who saw how much that horse meant to Woltz.

According to the book, it was strictly Don C's idea...

"The Don pondered the question until the next day. On Wednesday afternoon he had called Hagen to his home and given him his instructions. The instructions had consumed the rest of Hagen's working day and left him dazed with admiration. There was no question in his mind that the Don had solved the problem, that Woltz would call him in the morning with the news that Johnny Fontane had the starring part in his new war movie."

Michael did not have a physicial affair with anyone, rather his betrayal to Kay and his persistant lies to her. Michael indeed put the family above her and the children. This led them to drift farther apart.

xXx - had made a terrific insight on their behaviors in Vegas. They no longer have Vito breathing family values to them. So they behave as they want without the disaproval of Vito. We see Tom with a mistress, Michael neglecting his wife and kids, Fredo marrying a slut and acting like a playboy.

Damn! I've got to read the book. I am constantly getting trumped by you guys. Shows how an interpretation from the screenplay can definitely be different than what the original writer intended though. I wonder what percentage of those who watched the movies ever read the book?

I would like to say somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% or so, but I wonder.

In GF3, when Micheal makes his confession. It is implied that he was unfaithful-and I just always assumed it. I mean, Sonny and Fredo did it-but not Micheal? It just doesn't sound right.

When Michael tells the Cardinal that (among other things) he 'betrayed his wife', I always thought he was talking more in the moral sense than physical. By this time we know much of the bitterness he held in GFII has melted away...and as we know from their big scene together, Michael takes partial responsibility for the failure of his marriage to Kay.

And just because his brother's were that way doesn't necessarily mean Michael should be. Siblings can be very different. It's been discussed on this board before (many times) that Michael may have been a bit prudish; like his father he doesn't strike me as the type of man who would bother with something as frivolous as a sexual affair.

Apple

Really? I would say more like 25% or less.

I guess it would depend on how we chose to measure it.

There are more than 3000 members here, but at the moment, certainly no more than a couple of hundred are active.

When I joined, almost two years ago, the demographic appeared to be somewhat older and considerably more focused on the GF Trilogy than the membership seems to be today.

I'll say 75% of the first 1500 members (1125), plus 33% of the next 1500 (500), so my new estimate is around 50% or so.

Interesting question, though. You could always do a poll, but I don't think there would be enough responses to represent an accurate sample size. And all of the old (and older) members wouldn't be voting.

ALthough the book in and of itself is great and a great resource which expands your understanding of the GF Trilogy. I think they did such a great job with the movie that not reading the book is no real big loss. I mean you have the extra parts with Luci Mancini and Johnny Fontane which are great and add depth to the story as well as extensions on the movie itself. But it is still amazing how well they did adapted to book to movie.

I've said this before, and many have agreed: The GF is one of those rare cases where the film is not only better than the book, but much better.

Yup, all the extaneous parts are cut out because the Luci Mancini and Fontane cause the story to change gears wheny ou get to those parts.

You got that right! The book is merely pulp fiction but FFC turned that junk into a masterpiece.

I would agree the movie is better, but only based on the fact that all the parts that dont' add anything to the story are taken away like the Luci Mancini movie. She is a supplimental character along with Fontane. As great as those parts are to flushing out the story. What is already there aside from those parts IS the movie and FFC was really faithful to the parts of the book he did use.

It's ironic because so many films based on book A) do not do the book justice and B) are soon forgotten. I think it's due to FFC's imagination that the movie has reached such immortal status along with the book.

The film is much better than the book, I must say, but that shouldn't suggest that the book isn't a work of art in and of itself. One thing that I wish FFC would have done, that would have made this film more perfect than it already is, is to add in the scenes where Sonny gets the call from that detective about the shooting of his father, the following scene where he tells Mama Corleone, and the scene where he walks into the Don's office, glances at his dad's chair, and decides not to sit in it. It draws out Sonny's role much better, and serves to help the viewers better understand the personality of Santino Corleone as not only a hot-headed killer, but a gentle, loving person. Sonny was my favorite character in the film.

Re: the original question.

I think that Tom probably did have a mistress. As someone said, he's in Vegas, has access to brothels, and Vito is long dead.

While we may believe that Vito was such a huge influence on Tom (and he probably was), remember that it was Sonny who was his best friend, Sonny who saved him from a life of poverty and blindness, and it was really with Sonny that he felt a brotherhood. If Sonny and Fredo were closer to him in his early years, I would think it quite likely that he had a mistress.

Honestly I think Coppola wanted to show how the family was breaking apart. Kay leaves, Momma dies, Michael is about to kill Fredo, everything is falling apart.
Coppola shows the sharp contrast to the beginning of the story where the family is together before Vito is shot and the war (mob war) begins.

plawrence you are talking about the percentage of posters here, i was talking general audience. certainly more here have read the book.