It seems that many of you guys here agree that Michael had the talents of Vito but he didn't have his heart. I never really bought this kind of interpretation. I believe that Michael was in many ways unlucky. Vito would have acted the same way as Michael did, given the circumstances.
(1) If Vito was in Michael's shoes he would have killed Carlo. In fact, Vito knew that Michael would do that or would have to do that, even though he "never wanted this for you". So Connie's accusation: "You cold hearted bastard!" applies to Vito as well.
(2) Vito hated Fredo because Fredo showed the soft, careless side of Vito's character. Vito was straight in terms of sex, he didn't give a damn about entertainment. Through Fredo Vito realized what a burden he was carrying. And he was furious that Fredo was unwilling and unable to play the role of a "real man". Here we see the roots for Fredo's later death. Fredo was being kept "pretty much in the dark". Maybe Vito wouldn't have killed his own son. But I believe that under the same circumstances, Vito would have killed his brother.
(3) Michael tried to keep a good marriage , but he based the relationship with his wife on the values of Vito. This didn't work anymore in the 50s/60s, especially not with a modern woman like Kaye. Vito's wife never would have left him or threaten him to take the kids away. In the novel he says proudly, she never gave him a reason to beat her.
(4) We've talked a lot about how Michael treated Tom like sh*t. But let's face it. Vito had an old friend he could completely trust: Genco. Every-one knew that Tom was a bad wartime consigliere, even he knew that. So, Michael had no chance to really trust his advice. Also, Vito didn't even trust Clemenza and Tessio. (That's why he seperated them spatially.)
(5) Most importantly, Vito knew that Michael didn't want to be a part of the criminal world. And Vito didn't want it either. Why didn't they sell the "olive oil business", even if it was for a low price and tried to seek a place in the legitimate world instead of reaching out for the de-facto-criminal Las Vegas gambling world? Vito says, he never wanted this for Michael, but in fact he pushed him into it. Vito was the guy who said "family" when he was talking about business and vice versa. He repeated it so often until Michael had to believe that killing was part of the business and that what's good for business would be good for the family.

When Michael talks to his mother he realizes his own tragedy: He was being strong for his family (=business), but by being strong he lost it. And then there's the key sentence: "Tempi cambi." (Times are changing.) Being like his father didn't help him when times had changed.

These are really fun discussions.
1) As far as the murder of Carlo, it's true that Vito was ok with it but he could not bring himself to order it. This is more explicitly detailed in the book. In the movie it's just talked around because as Tom said there are some things you just do and never discuss. It was much easier for Connie to blame Michael and not think that her husband was complicit in the murder of her brother or that her other brother and father planned the revenge.

2) I don't think Vito hated Fredo. I don't think that Vito was the sort of person who could hate his sons, no matter what they did. I think he was contemptuous and disappointed in Fredo though. I do think because he was a father, Vito would have taken more of a paternal interest in Fredo's doings and would have known about Fredo's "chance meeting" with Johnny Ola. Vito would have moved heaven and earth to find Fredo something to do that would have met Fredo's limited capacity, not made the Family more vulnerable and perhaps even given Fredo some confidence. To his credit, Michael did try to do that but was blindsided by Fredo's feeling passed over.

3) Yup. Michael probably should have married a Sicilian or Italian-American woman but love is love. That being said though again he should have been more attentive to the home fires.

4) Also true but we never see Michael reach out to Tom either. It seems like he blames Tom for the murder of Sonny. Sonny's own temper made something like that inevitable in the long run. Although Tom is not as cunning or as ruthless as Genco supposedly was, his loyalty is just as strong, while his knowledge of the new political structures is probably better. Michael could have made better use of Tom.

5) Sure ultimately Vito was an evil man. Events beyond his control nudged Michael to walk the same path his father walked. Michael could have turned away but it was actually love for his father, which is a good thing that made him start down that path. I think once you're in that life, you're in that life for good. Vito would have made a lot of enemies in his time as boss of the most powerful Mafia family. I don't think it would have been possible to just close up shop and still manage to protect his personal family and assets from newly emboldened enemies. Maybe, but pride and greed prevented Michael and Vito from doing so. If they were going to leave it would be on THEIR terms,not Barzini's.

I think it's been discussed elsewhere on the board but imagine if the Corleones had taken Solozzo's deal. Sure Barzini and Tattaglia get stronger but so do the Corleones. Sonny survives and leads the Family with Tom's (and Vito's) advice. Michael grows to become a legitimate businessman or political leader, albeit one with some interesting relations. He's able to use his influence to help his brother's NY operations even more. He becomes a political broker on the same level as his old man-more so because he has no personal history of violence or criminality.

If all of this had happened maybe then the Corleones would have started to sell or franchise off pieces of the "olive oil business". But they would have been doing so from a position of strength. Actually Puzo uses this EXACT same theme in "The Last Don" and "Omerta". In the book Puzo writes about how Vito was interested in the new possibilities of white collar crime and sought to bind his Family more closely within society. So I think something like this would have been Vito's ultimate design. Life just got in the way...

As we've been discussing the question of "heart," we've been bound by what we've seen in the films (and for some, read in the novel). We've gotten little insight into how the protagonists feel. One way to come at it is to look at their motivation:

I think Vito transplanted the basic Sicilian aspiration of establishing family honor and physical security in the face of abuse by ruling pezzanovanti. I don't think he was interested in money or power as ends unto themselves--they were the means to the end of being honored and secure in America. Being the top Don in NYC was the means for preventing other powerful men from threatening him and his family. Since his family was the object of his lifelong struggle for honor and security, he'd never think of killing Carlo or Fredo--that would be a total contradiction of everything he'd strived for.

Michael had some of the same motivation, but he was far more ambitious, far more interested in power for its own sake. Ultimately, his obsession with power and control lead him to become self-centered and self-absorbed to the exclusion of everyone else. Why was he cold to Tom? Because Tom wasn't his choice as consigliere or brother--Tom was Vito's and Sonny's choice, respectively. Why did he oust Kay? Because she thwarted his dynastic aims by exercising her reproductive prerogative in defiance of him. I continue to believe that Michael made the right choice about Carlo and Fredo because they were legitimate threats to him and his family. Vito might well have done the same with Carlo if he didn't have Michael waiting in the wings to do it for him. I doubt he would have killed Fredo.

Michael and Vito were similar in that they both had unrealistic, self-centered definitions of "legitimacy." Michael thought he deserved to be considered legitimate because he saw himself as no worse than the politicians and business leaders he dealt with. Vito saw himself as legitimate because he was providing "justice" to transplanteed Sicilians being screwed over by American pezzanovanti. There was more than a little truth to that. But he was being totally unrealistic when he said to Michael, "I never wanted this for you...Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone..." Did he realistically intend for Michael to be a free agent--to pursue those high offices with no connection whatsoever to the family business? Or did he intend for Michael to use those high offices to channel the family's gambling dominance into legalized casinos, and the labor rackets into his own political machine as a way to obtain more power?

[quote=Turnbull But he was being totally unrealistic when he said to Michael, "I never wanted this for you...Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone..." Did he realistically intend for Michael to be a free agent--to pursue those high offices with no connection whatsoever to the family business? Or did he intend for Michael to use those high offices to channel the family's gambling dominance into legalized casinos, and the labor rackets into his own political machine as a way to obtain more power? [/quote]

I think Vito wanted Michael to be a Senator or a governor to use his high offices to enhance Vito's wealth... perhaps to somehow "legitimize" him, but Vito was a "family first" man, and he would have never wanted Michael to break withthe family for independent political gain. Don't forget the deleted scene when they go to see Genco. Vito tells Michael to come to him and work for him. What he "didn't want" for Micahel was for him to be mixed up in the day to day operations of the mob. He anted him to be a senator who could do his bidding from a "legitimate" place.

I think Vito's plans for Michael would have been a combination of Michael being a legitimate big shot but at the same time doing a few favors here and there that no one could find fault with.

I think Vito would have been savvy enough not to get Michael involved in anything too shady. I also think his desire that Michael be outside the family business (or at least certain aspects of it) was real, albeit conflicted.

Michael would be the fulcrum to slowly change the Corleones into a family no different than real life dynasties like the Kennedys or Pritzkers-families whose forebears had "interesting" histories but over time had amassed huge amounts of completely legit wealth and power.

"I never wanted this for you" were Vito's words to Michael. But he did want it for Sonny and Fredo. he simply wanted michael to be the one to hold the strings. He did not intend an evolution of the family.

I haven't read the books yet (they are on order!) and I'm new. I know this thread is a little aged, sorry. I've loved the movies for a long time and never really found anyone to talk about them with.

Forgive me if I'm a little naive, but I've been skimming through lots of websites and blogs lately and been surprised to see so many describe Michael as heartless. I know he's an evil bastard, and comes off as quite cold. But personally I never, ever believe him when he says things are business.

Michael didn't used to care about the business and never wanted to be a part of it. He was aware of how his family came by their power, and when he was young he thought it was wrong, unAmerican, that he would be different--but that said family would still be powerful. He needed them to be, to always be there, go on existing, and go on being wrong, for him to differentiate himself from them, to be a good little American and say, "I am not them," as he said to Kay.

So that when Vito gets shot he realizes for the first time his family isn't invincible. They won't just go on if he walks away. So Michael does a complete 180. I think Michael's motivations at this point (deciding to shoot McCluskey and the Turk) are very similar to when Vito kills Don Fanucci. He just wants to protect his family and feels this is the only way. So at that moment Michael decides to completely adopt his father's (the Italian) model of behavior. This is born out by his behavior in Sicily. He does not try to impose American standards of courtship on Apollonia's family at all; he wants to follow this completely Italian tradition.

But being his father doesn't work for Michael. His wife gets killed and Sonny gets killed and his own inner circles--family--have all betrayed him. Michael is trapped between two paradigms. The old Italian model doesn't work any more because times, they are a-changin'. But Michael can't walk away, either, can't shake this age old idea of his culture that his family is everything.

I think by the end Vito maybe did think Carlo needed to be killed--but Vito never would have done it. As someone says above, it was completely against everything Vito stood for--in the terms I'm using, completely against his paradigm. Vito never had to give up that paradigm because of the generation he was born in. The point where he had to give it up came so late in life; it was so firmly entrenched in him I don't think he would have been able to give it up even if he had lived longer. He might have seen the need for killing Carlo, but he could not do it, and that's why he stepped down and had Michael as Don.

So I guess you can interpret Michael killing Carlo as completely cold-blooded. He steps out of his father's way of doing things and does it his own way. Bada bing. But considering everything we've seen Michael go through I don't think it's that simple. I think Michael's action (killing Carlo) is motivated by rage and helplessness. He turned his back on everything he dreamed of being (as a teenager/during the war/right after), and did exactly what his father did. He thinks he did it all for his family, and now his family betrays him. Michael doesn't know wtf he's doing wrong; it isn't supposed to be like this.

It's seemed even more so with Fredo, of course. I don't think Michael had Fredo or Carlo killed for his protection, or his family's protection, or anything so rational as that. I think Michael resents the fact that he's doing everything he said he wouldn't do and didn't want to be, and he's doing it all for them (so he thinks!), and everywhere all of them are turning on him and he can't figure out why. It's because he's completely driven by this rage and resentment, but I don't think Michael sees that. He sees himself as exactly like his father, and then when things don't go his way he does things his father would never have done, and then wonders why his family does love him and honor him they way they did Vito.

So, anyway, I think Michael is driven by rage. "I did this for you, and look how you repay me!" Obviously there's a lot of calculation involved; he's not a hothead like Sonny. But I think it is all emotion, that he takes his hurts and bewilderments and lets them burn until the time is right. I think he is a lot worse than Sonny, actually, in being dominated by his emotions, because he isn't knee jerk like Sonny is. If you slight Sonny, he'll probably try to kill you, but give it a week and he'd probably cool down. Michael just waits and waits and waits, but when he strikes I don't think it's out of ambition, or anything so rational as protection. It's because his ickle feelings are hurt, and his heart is broken, and because he's a sad, sad horrible man.

Um . . . am I way off base, here?

Wow that is an awe-inspiring first post


Welcome To Da Family

You've summed Michael up very succinctly in that one sentence that is in bold. Mike, like Vito, took EVERYTHING personally, despite their protestations to the opposite.

And I agree 100% with you that Mike was more dangerous than Sonny because he waited and stewed. He literally took Vito's "advice" that revenge was a dish best served cold.

Welcome to the boards, tkp, and thanks for your insight!

Thanks! Glad to have found this place.

Though now I feel the need to add the caveat that I think Michael demoting Tom in in GF1 was just business after all. There seems to be some speculation Michael blamed Tom for Sonny's death, and I don't see that at all. I think Michael loved and trusted Tom then just as much as he loved and trusted his parents, (other) brother, and sister. He just didn't think Tom could do what needed to be done, and was completely (coldly) clinical in his assessment of him. /exception :o)

No TKP, there is indirect evidence that Mike blamed Tom for the precarious position in which he left the family. He refers to him continually as "my laywer." He keeps Tom out of the meeting with Ola for no apparent reason other than animus. He tells him after the attempted assassination that he loves him with the same degree of sincerity that he feigns in his conversations with Roth. His threatening Tom about Tom's mistress (and the rest of that conversation) illustrates Mike's thinly (at best) disguised animus toward Tom. Mike was the ultimate user and he used Tom just like he used everybody.

Underlying this always-interesting discussion topic is the fact that Puzo and FFC portrayed Vito very sympathetically in both the novel and the film. Obviously a man who'd gained his position would have to be ruthless and, if not cold-hearted, at least immune to many of the human feelings that might restrain you or me. But we don't see that side of Vito, especially in the film. What we see, from the very beginning, is a loving father. What we see of Michael is his transformation from war hero/college student to Mafia Don.

I think that the main difference is that Vito never forgot his past, while Michael couldn't wait to get away from his. Vito had tons of money, but he had his daughter's wedding in the backyard with homemade lasagna and his friend made the cake. Guests felt free to sing with the band, as did the mother of the bride.

Look at Anthony's communion party, with the police patrols, the "can o' peas", the non-Italian band and professional dancers. Can you imagine Kay singing with the band?

TB and SB, you both make good points. One more is that Vito created the family from scratch while Michael inherited a heck of alot of assets to build on. Of course, no child is ever a duplicate of the parent. As I've posted elsewhere, Mike had his father's intelligence and murderous capabilities, but not Vito's discretion about using them.

Well, as you say, the evidence is indirect, and thus open to interpretation. One thing I love (about the movies, anyway) is the audience never gets inside Michael's head. We can never be completely sure what motivates him.

I agree with you that Michael used Tom. But again, imo Michael's treatment of Tom is one of the only times it is business, not personal. I submit to you that if Michael, in a clinical analysis lacking emotion, for some reason finds Tom incompetent, he could have a reason other than animus to leave Tom out of some things (such as the meeting with Ola). And I think there are reasons Michael could come to the conclusion Tom isn't the best resource in some respects--e.g. Tom's inability to think ahead of their enemies.

For the record, I do not find Tom lacking. But I think Michael does, and again, he can do so without hating Tom or blaming him for Sonny. The end result is the same--Michael is cruel to Tom, uses Tom, and I think hurts him quite a lot. But I am, of course, speaking of a difference in Michael's motivations.

I don't think Michael hates people in his inner circle for their weaknesses. Look at Fredo. I don't think Michael holds a grudge against him for freezing up when Vito got shot. He doesn't hate Fredo for licking Moe Green's ass, either. He just thinks Fredo's a weak idiot. Maybe the distinction I'm making here is small, but there's a difference between thinking someone has a lot of egregious faults, and hating and holding a grudge against someone. Michael uses and exploits people for their weaknesses, but I think he accepts said weaknesses, forgives them, even--probably because he thinks no one can be as great as him. He's an arrogant asshole that way.

But I think the only time he doesn't forgive weaknesses is when he sees those weaknesses as being used with malicious intent to hurt him. Fredo, Connie, Carlo, Pentangeli--all intentionally harm him at some point. I do not think Kay acts out of intent to hurt Michael, but I think Michael would see it that way, which amounts to the same thing when it comes to Michael. But I don't think he could ever interpret Tom's actions as such.

Anyway, I don't think "my lawyer" is necessarily an insult. As I said before, Michael has to move away from the Italian way of doing things and forge a new way, such that the idea of "consigliere" is slowly becoming obsolete, whereas lawyers are becoming far more necessary. N.B.: GF2 paints a broad distinction between young!Vito's world, which is virtually lawless, and Michael's, in which a investigation by the government takes up half the plot. Tom being a lawyer is essential to Michael, and the family as it is in late 50's America.

I also feel Michael telling Tom he loves him after the assassination attempt is very open to interpretation, because I did find that moment very sincere. In fact, that scene is the reason I just can't get behind the Michael-hates-Tom-and-bears-him-a-grudge idea. I think Michael still cares about his family more than anything else in the world, at that point, and I don't think he'd leave his family in the hands of someone he hates, or holds a grudge against.

Lastly, I completely agree that Michael's bringing up Tom's mistress, and as you say, the rest of that conversation, is completely malicious. He is deliberately hurting Tom and trying to threaten him in the worst way possible. But I do not think it's because he hates Tom, nor again, because he has a grudge against him, but because Michael is desperately afraid Tom will turn on him too. Michael has just learned about what Fredo did, and for all his cool demeanor, I think he's overwhelmed with both irreconcilable rage and absolute panic that he's losing everything.

In this scene, though Michael doesn't say the words, he's also telling Tom he's going to kill his own brother. Michael is being absolutely as ugly as possible, being as monstrous as he can, to see whether Tom will still be with him. Imo Michael is practically masochistic in this scene; he's just asking to be turned on and betrayed. Obviously, he's also the sadist of the relationship--because Tom takes it.

And keeps on taking it.

Sorry for the long babble. I love that twisted relationship. I really, really wish GF3 could have been about their break up, as was originally planned. That would absolutely just rip me up, because I really think Tom is Michael's last hope. And I think Tom loved Sonny and Vito and the Corleone's, and even loves Michael himself--loves for the man himself, ugly as he is--enough that to have to turn from the blasted shell Michael becomes would absolutely destroy Tom too.

The key to Michael's behavior toward Tom is his obsession with being in total control. Tom was Sonny's choice for brother, not Michael's. Tom was Vito's choice for consigliere, not Michael's. But there's a personal element, too. In the flashback scene at the end of II, Tom tells the idealistic kid Michael, "Your father and I have talked about your future many times." Michael, even then, gives him the Dreaded Corleone Stare: "You...talked to my father...about my future?" Tom's sphincter must have imploded with that display of cold disapproval--the same demeanor he showed Tom in the boathouse.

I agree that Michael didn't hate Fredo or Tom. But he might have resented Fredo for not being capable of either protecting Vito or taking over the Family--both of which might have allowed Michael to continue with his plan to finish college, marry Kay and lead a legitimate life. And while Sonny's temper got him killed, Michael might have blamed Tom for not warning Sonny to expect more perfidy from Carlo.

Well, TB, those are good points. I think like you apparently do that Tom's failure to protect Sonny was what Michael could never reconcile himself to. Mike's reference to Tom as my lawyer says it all for me.

Another point re. Tom as brother: He never refers to Vito as "Pop" or "Dad" when he's talking to Sonny or Michael. When he's with Sonny, he calls him "the old man" a couple of times, which does imply some informality. But to Michael, he's always "your father." Now, if he thought of himself as a real brother (as in "I was as good a son to him as you" to Sonny in the Don's office), don't you think he would have used "Pop" or "Dad" with Sonny and Michael? We might say that Tom was being "professional" but to me it suggests that he's being reticent. Sonny refers to his father as "Pop" to Tom (admittedly in a negative context: "Pop had Genco--look who I got").

I think some of this was FFC's choice. I can't remember now if in the novel Tom ever calls Vito Pop or Dad. Some of that was Vito's own doing as he didn't treat Tom completely like a son until Tom asked to work for him like a son. After Sonny's murder Vito calls Tom his son and tells him he comforts him. We also see that masterfully acted without words in the movie scene. In the book Tom also refers to Mama Corleone as Ma.

Tom's whole relationship with all of the other Corleones was pretty interesting. I think they all accepted him as a brother/son since they had grown up with him but Michael, being Michael, didn't hesitate to stick in the knife that Tom wasn't really his brother. I don't think Vito would have deliberately hurt loved ones like that.

I still think that Tom was a little too fawning over Michael's line of bs "I always wanted to be considered a brother, a real brother by you Michael"

This is a good point TB. Do you think this is why Michael didn't really have an effective underboss or consigliere? He just wanted drones to do what he ordered, not advisors or seconds-in-command?

Oh, wow, really great points TB. I agree Michael might have resented Tom. I tend not to read it that way, but the possibility is wide open; you're right.

I'm particularly interested in your reading of Michael's "you talked to my father about my future" line. I was going to point out re: Michael not "choosing" Tom as a brother, that they grew up together. As I haven't read the book I'm a little unclear on this, but as I understand Sonny brought Tom home, but then Tom was accepted generally too, by the family, even if Sonny and Tom were always closest (as siblings closest in age often are). So of course Michael didn't "choose" Tom for a brother, but then again he didn't choose Fredo either; he would have grown up considering Tom family.

Of course I've noticed that Tom isn't always treated as real family. No one ever considers him for Don and he never even considers himself, and plenty of other little things show Tom is frequently outside the magic circle. But I was going to say that it seemed Tom had been accepted enough by everyone in the family that for Michael to suddenly say, "but it wasn't me who wanted you in our family" would seem like Michael had been holding a grudge since he was five. Which seemed implausible.

Anyway, as you point out, Michael emphasizes "my father." Which you're reading as "my father, not yours", i.e. "you're not a part of this family so you can't discuss my future". What's so fascinating to me is I always interpreted the emphasis to mean "my father, not me". i.e. "it's my future, not my father's, so if you discuss my future it should be with me". That is, you can read it one way as pushing away Tom, another as pushing away his whole family. Of course, either way Michael is pushing away his whole family with the line, since he's saying his future is his own. And I think both interpretations are valid, but I think it's really interesting how the former interpretation really allows for a reading of Michael that is quite cold and resentful of Tom, and never considered him as his family. Thanks for the insight. ...It makes me sad, but Tom always makes me sad :o(

Also, small point, since I am peculiarly concerned by the state of Tom's sphincter, I doubt it imploded at that particular moment. I don't think Tom felt very intimidated by Michael at that time in their lives. And since it was Vito with whom Tom discussed Michael, Tom was probably comfortable with it, if also probably startled and upset that Michael is so obviously resentful of it.

Lilo: Michael's control obsession meant he'd never completely trust anyone else's judgement. No one could be his consigliere.

TKP: Revealing scene: at Connie's wedding, Michael and Tom embrace. He introduces Tom to Connie as, "My brother, Tom Hagen." I don't believe using Tom's last name was intended to show distance between Michael and Tom at that point--it was FFC/Puzo's device to get Michael to explain to Kay how Sonny took Tom in. But Tom said to Michael: "Your father is asking about you"--not Dad or Pop. I thought that was revealing.

Note that Michael also goes out of his way to tell Kay that Tom is in line to be conigliere even though he is not a Sicilian.

Yes. Although Michael meant to be informative to Kay, it kind of had a condescending tone, didn't it?

I see what you mean, but I also think it was very complimentary. He seems to be saying that Tom is as good a lawyer/advisor as a non-Sicilian can be. Michael also does not seem to disapprove of Tom as a potential consigliere.

Precisely, and that is what he tells Tom throughout. "You are a good lawyer, but you are no consigliere."

Just 1 hour ago I watched the Bonasera/dead Sonny scene again.
Vito's crying: "Look how they massacred my boy!"
Now, he's the one who's crying?
Did he spare a thought of all the parents he made cry over the dead bodies of their sons who dared refuse an offer which wasn't meant to be refused?
Did he remember his Johnny-mimicking: "Boohoo - what can I do? What can I do? You can act like a man!"

Vito was as cold hearted as his son.
He was lucky because he had an old fashioned Italian wife. And he had one friend - Genco.