I rarely post topics but this one has got me thinking...

IN GF3 when Micheal says over the casket
"why were you so loved and I was so feared, was it my mind or my heart that betrayed me."

DO you think it was a good thing or a bad thing that he was feared more then loved? From my perspective i say it was made him what he is. Think about, out of all the people in the Trilogy, hes the only one who dies of old age. I think peoples fear of him is what gave him his power. As said in A bronx tale, its better to be feared then loved, becuase fear lasts longer.

I must respectfully disagree. Michael's regret is that he and Don Tomassino (and Michael's father, who I think he is also speaking to in this scene) were both men of power, yet Michael ruled by fear, while Don Tomassino and Vito were loved by so many. I think that Michael wanted to be a man like his father, but somewhere the absolute power corrupted absolutely. I think he feels that he would've liked to have learned the ability to get loyalty and respect out of love, and NOT fear.

yes i understand what Micheal Wanted, but im saying do you think the fear did better for him in the end then love did but he does not realize it. Becuase look his father and Tomassino both loved men, and Tomassino was killed and Vito was shot badly to near death. And wasnt Micheal the richest and most powerful Mafia Head in the US, and Richer then even his father.

Tomassino and Vito died of old age. Although Vito was shot, he recovered. More importantly, they died surrounded by their family, and with the love and loyalty of their friends. Who does Michael have? He's lost Kay. By her association with him, he loses Appollonia and Mary to violence. He killed his own brother. What does he have, besides money???? His father had it all. And I think that's what he realized.

Tomassino was shot in his car. Thats true that micheal died with nothing (besides losing Kay thats a plus) but i think it wasnt the fear that did him in it was poor choices. I think he was just thinking to hard and he didnt follow his heart like his father.

Keep in mind that Vito was shot in 1946. He didn't die until 1955.

As far as Michael being feared goes, he ruled in a different world than his father did. It was a world where love counted for little. Also, keep in mind that Vito's love was of his family. He was quite prepared to be as violent as necessary with those outside of his family. To that extent Mike and Vito were no different. I'm sure that Don Tomassino was quite feared, but he was able to endear people to him. Michael's shortcoming was that he was only capable of mimicking his father. He didn't have his father's quality that endeared people to him. In that sense, he was one dimensional.

well put

michael was too concerned about revenge. he could not forgive his brother and could not forgive kay for having an abortion. this is what made him feared. he was the same as his father in all respects apart from this flaw. however, if vito or tommasio had been in michaels positon..would they have done the same? they probably would have..in the sicilian way of thinking, that kind of betrayal cannot be forgiven.

Welcome, parms.

In the book, the point is made that Vito could not bring himself to kill his son-in-law Carlo, and that was one of the reasons he turned the reins over to Michael.

So no, I don't think he would have done the same as Michael. I certainly can't see him ever killing his own son.

I see many good points being made in these posts. However I must agree with both Sicilian Babe and Plaw. What good did Michael's being feared do for him? He lost his family! He killed his own brother, and while no one would ever dare say that he did so, it was probably known throughout the underworld. He died alone, unloved, without anyone there to love him. Vito and Don Tommasino both died being loved, with many there to love them. Michael's thirst for power and legitimacy clouded his judgement when it came to those that he loved. He lost his daughter because he was so feared by his enemies that they decided to take him out no matter who was around. The first time they shot up his home, where his chidren play. The second time they shot his daughter, in an attempt to kill him. The attempt on his life which cost his daughter her life was an attempt that was made out of both fear and anger towards him. Even the way that he handled Joe Zsa Zsa in Atlantic City was in no way near the way that his father would have handled the situation with Zsa Zsa. Michael blantently insulted him in front of the whole commission. If that had been Vito you can rest assured that he would have handled Zsa Zsa much differently. Yes Michael became very powerful, no question. Hie father was also very powerful. But the difference is that Vito was ruthless when the situation called for it. When he had to be. Vito knew how to use his enemies to his advantage. Vito would never be ruthless with his own family or those that he loved. Michael became totally ruthless, killed those he loved, and then just went on to wipe out all of his enemies. Yes, I have to agree with Sicilian Babe and Plaw on this one.


Don Cardi

I think you're agreeing with me for thw wrong reasons, DC.

I believe that Carlo deserved to be killed. He physically abused Vito's daughter, and was complicit in the murder of Vito's son. His acts were intentional.

But Vito lacked the ruthlessness required to kill Carlo. He wanted to kill Carlo, but couldn't bring himself to do it, hence his turning the power over to Michael. It was not his cunning or any other positive personality characteristic that he possessed and Michael didn't that caused him to spare Carlo.

Rather, it was a flaw and a weakness: The lack, in this case, of the ruthlessness required to do what had to be done.

There are two sides to this question. I look at it like an undercover cop. Is an undercover cop good? Yes. Is an undercover cop with a family good? I say no.
In Michael's business I think it was great that he was feared, he would have an upperhand in business deals etc.. since he is the strongest and most ruthless people would think twice about going against him.
In his "personal" life if you can call it that it was a horrible thing, you hear a lot of people say something along the lines of "don't mess with a scared or cornered animal" something like that, in other words you don't know how someone will act out of fear. Michael's personal life gave his enemies 2 (possibly 3,4) targets to go after if a rival family was that scared.

A Mafia Don that is not feared. Now, think about that for a moment. Typically, they don't hold just administrative positions. They tend to have gotten to where they are because they are cold blooded murderers and are prepared to murder again and again. So, to compliment Mike by characterizing him as feared is superfluous. Vito and Tomassino were feared also (Remember Vito telling Bonasera: " . . . then they will fear you."). But, they exuded an affection for people that endeared those people to them. Michael apparently had no such instinct.

One might ask a different question about Mafiosi: Is it better to be loved than NOT feared?

Feared or loved: fear definitely lasts longer. It's such a valid point, it could be used as a principle basis for one's social life. I'd definitely preferred to be feared.

Michael being feared or loved. It's definitely a good thing he was feared than loved. Sense he was feared, he wasn't questioned, he was taken seriously, and he had support. The fear that Michael Corleone let off was positive and beneficial.

If you fear someone the support you give might not be as good compared to if you love/respect that person.

Good point. But at many times love/respect can be deceptive. It can hold out for a good time, but it's not as reliable as fear. Fear's something that's motivative, it can win elections, it can end lives.

Love is something you feel for someone after a longer amount of time. All you have to do to get someone to fear you is to put a gun in their face. To get them to truly love/respect you involves spending a great deal of time with the other person, or saving lives.

True love is much more uncommon than fear, plus it's harder to get your hands on. It's a complex thing. A change of heart can happen within minutes, causing betrayal.

Now who's being naive kay?

I would argue they both take a long time to gain. You need a "record" to have someone fear you. You can't just point a gun at someone and have them "under your spell" for the rest of their lives. You need to have some sort of history that lets people know hmmmm this guy isn't messing around.

also a comment about how you said about betrayal. Why would someone betray another person? Obviously they think it is going to be in some way beneficial to them- they are not going to betray Michael by going with Joe Schmoe down the street who stands no change of taking Michael out. With that said, if you fear someone you obviously aren't going to like them. So someone who you think is more powerful than Michael (to you) comes along and you see going with them as being beneficial AND hurting this man you fear, I would bet you would go for it.

I don't think Michael's desire was either fear or love. I think that what he wanted most of all was to be recognized and respected as "legitimate." By his definition (to Kay in New Hampshire), his father was "no different than other powerful men with responsibility toward others." At Anthony's party he gives a huge endowment to the university, is recognized by a US Senator, has the Nevada Boys Choir singn "Mr. Wonderful" to him. In his Senate statement, he says he deserves to be respected because he served his country honorably in World War II; he owns stock in hotels, in IBM and ITT; "Godfather" wasn't his father's alias, it was a term of respect and affection, etc.

This is a man fundamentally at war with himself. He wants family, status, peace. But his criminal mentality and obsession with power constantly rain violence and chaos on his life--and he doesn't see that his own actions and decisions have have caused his woes. He's beyond love and fear. The only way he can make sense out of his conflicts is for society to put a patina of respectability on his life. That's why GFIII begins with his investiture as a Papal Knight (with the press invited to his party), and why he gets involved with the Vatican Bank and Immobiliare.

Why am I agreeing with you for the wrong reason? You said that you could never see Vito killing his own son, and I agreed with that.

Vito had a genuine love for his blood family. And while Michael may have also had a love for his blood family, his quest for both legitimacy and power took precedent over his love for his blood family. Had Vito been in Michael's shoes, he would have never had his own son or brother killed.

Only a cold blooded ruthless bastard would have his own brother, a simple minded brother without a touch of malice in him, killed! I do agree that any Mafia Don MUST be feared, but at the same time a Mafia Don must know the difference between taking out his enemy and taking out his own brother, especially one with the mind that Fredo had!


Turnbull hits it right on the head when he says that all Michael really cared about was finding legitimacy, no matter what the cost.



So where do I agree with you for the wrong reason?


Don Cardi

Small point, but the Carlo situation called for ruthlessness on Vito's part.

You just LOVE to disagree with me, don't you!?!
You're just dying to start a debate with me, huh?

Don Cardi

You? Hell, I love to disagree with anyone.

And since FS hasn't been around since Friday......

I need to raise this point because it's something I've been thinking about. Could Vito be responsible for Sonny's death? The reason I say it is that in a deleted scene IN THE CORLEONE HOUSEHOLD Sonny wanted to teach Carlo a lesson, but Vito said no stay out of it. Obviously we all know what happens later but didn't Carlo turn on Sonny because he humiliated him in front of "his people" If it would have happened at home "man to man" maybe things would have been different. Just a thought

you can be feared and respected at the same time

I think the difference between Michael and Vito is that Vito had control of it. He decided what level of menace/affection to use, depending on what the need of the situation was. He never lost control of that. Was Vito ever impulsive? Ever excessive? Did he ever do anything that was not pre-meditated and that, afterwards, did not make sense to us? Obviously as he got older it can be said that he was 'slipping' but that was due to many other factors, not the degree of love or fear that others felt for him.

Mike, on the other hand, loses it. Al Pacino talks about this on the fourth DVD, "Two, now, is about trying to hold onto everything, and... losing it". I agree that what he wants is legitimacy, but he is no longer really in control of what he does or what happens to him. He is so corrupt, so heartless by the middle of Part II that it twists him, makes him paranoid. The scene where Tom asks if he really has to wipe everybody out, and he replies "I don't feel I have to wipe everybody out, Tom. Just my enemies, that's all." - This is disturbing because we no longer can be sure of exactly who Mike considers an enemy. This is right after he's questioned Tom's loyalty. Right after we've seen the deadly glance to Neri at the funeral. I personally feel more aligned with Tom in that scene, nervous, and growing increasingly dubious about Mike's methods and judgement.
It is the point at which Mike becomes truly dangerous. Vito could be loved or feared depending on what he wanted out of a person. Michael is by this point, a livewire - we don't know who he's going to turn on next, and I get the feeling that neither does he. So for me, Vito wins hands down - Mike became something horrible, something that it was really necessary to fear, whilst Vito could illicit fear without losing his humanity.

Perhaps because Vito had truly lost his family, he wanted to build a new life filled with love and security. I think that his basic humanity, and the life he had lived beforehand, kept him humble and human. Although he was a very, very rich man, he was happy with simple things, like his garden, etc. To him, the compound and the guards were a matter of security, not a status symbol.

Michael, on the other hand, was raised in luxury. I think he may have been a bit spoiled. When he rose so rapidly in the Family, as the Don's son and heir apparent, I believe that the things he does later are out of frustration when he some times can't get his way. He moved out to the lavish estate, made himself public by giving to charities, openly associating with politicians, and so on. I think that maybe Michael, on some level, resented the life he ended up living.

As usual Joolsie, you're right on target. As I've posted many times, Michael was just an imitation of his father. He was just going throught he motions. Many times in life people will mimic someone's behavior. They think that they are being just like that person, but they are really only imitating their behaviors. Vito could not bring himself to murder his grandson's father. Michael, on the other hand, apparently had no problem murdering even his brother. The ending of GFIII says it all. Deserted, alone, with just regrets to contemplate as the life oozes from his body.

Well, I've posted it many times too, and I remain perfectly happy with my opinion, that Michael was not any imitation of Vito, he was Michael. But they were very much alike - they couldn't help it. Oh yes - I almost forgot the most important - GF3 is not a source of any knowlege of Michael, or indeed anything and anybody.