One of the scenes that has always raised questions for me is why Michael acted the way he did when he went to Pentangeli's house after he'd seen Roth. Its clear that Michael did not suspect Pentangeli from his actions before and after this scene. Before it, he tells Roth that he knows Pentangeli tried to kill him, which was clearly a ruse to make Roth believe that michael did not suspect him.
After it Michael goes into great detail about why he wants Pentangeli to make the deal with the Rosato brothers.

But the scene I am talking about is when Michael shows up unnanounced at the Pentangeli house, and Pentangeli says how he wished Michael had called ahead etc etc. Right there Michael explodes on him screaming about the hit, how it was in his bedroom where his wife sleeps and where his children come to play with their toys. My questio is what was he trying to acomplish by dressing Pentangeli down that way. It is very un-Michael like conduct...I think the only other time he ever lost it was in the scene with Kay when she tells him about the abortion. The only thing I can think is that previously Pentangeli was quite angry about dealing with the Rosato brothers and that Michael was trying to intimidate him into dealing with them. Anyone else have any ideas?

That's a good question. I have always thought that Michael believed Roth was responsible for the attempted hit, but may have had a slight doubt. But I don't think Pentangeli would have been able to conceal his involvement from Michael if he was truly involved.
I also thought that his unannounced visit and outburst was designed to put Pentangeli on his heels- a bit frightened and defensive so that he'd be less emphatic about his wishes to destroy the Rosato Brothers.
Finally, I think the violent tone was used because Pentangeli is a very visceral character. While Michael was calm and rational with Roth, one of the more cerebral characters in the film, he knew that Pentangeli responds to raw emotion. By Michael taking the lead with a forceful, emotional outburst, he makes Pentangeli respond rather than act out.
At Anthony's party Pentangeli acted out with gut emotion as Michael spoke to him from a rational standpoint. At the meeting at Pentangeli's home, the tables were turned.

I think that Michael was simply and reasonably truly upset by the attempt that endangered his family.

Yes indeed!
In that scene (Pacino's best in II, IMO), Michael played Frankie like a violin. He was 99% sure Roth was behind the
Tahoe attack, but the outburst was intended (in part) to put Frankie to the test. More important, the outburst was designed to soften him up and scare him so that, when Michael said, "I want you to help me take my revenge," Frankie practically passed out with relief. "Michael, anything ..." says the given-a-pass Frankie. Then Michael jumped in for the triumph: "Settle these problems with the Rosato brothers." He took advantage of Frankie's relief to get him to do something he didn't want to do--and that was damned dangerous to boot. And Michael couldn't lose: if Frankie succeeded in patching things up with the Rosatos, it'd be one less thing Michael would have to be concerned with. If the Rosatos whacked him, it'd be more confirmation that Roth was the culprit in Tahoe (not that he needed any at that point).

I think the question I posed is answered. The outburst was staged to make Pentangeli go along with making the deal with the Rosatos. There are other times when Michael used artifice to get what he wanted, and really he was a great manipulator. For instance his proposal to Kay, pleading to her maternal instincts was brilliant.

Also the way he played Tom. He knew the one thing Tom wanted above all else was to be a "real brother" so when it suited him he would let Tom in, and when it didn't he would be abusive to him.

It could also be a part of his getting Rocco to go on the suicide mission to kill Roth. This has been written about a lot on other threads, so I wont belabor it here, however the manipulatioin is simple ....Rocco knows that Neri has passed him by, and for whatever reason he wants to show Michael he is every bit as deserving as Neri of his respect, so to do it, he willingly puts his life on the line to do Michael's bidding.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dontomasso:

Also the way he played Tom. He knew the one thing Tom wanted above all else was to be a "real brother" so when it suited him he would let Tom in, and when it didn't he would be abusive to him.


You touch upon a point that always intrigued me.

I always saw Tom as someone who struggled somewhat with his role in the family. Early in G1, of course, Michael refers to him as his brother when sitting with Kay.
After Vito is shot, Sonny gets riled with Tom and says something to the effect of, "That's easy for you... he's not your father."
Tom doesn't flinch, and replies right back to him, "I'm as much a son to him as you are." (or something similar)

One might think at that moment such a statement would be fighting words and send Sonny through the roof, but he immediately shuts up, leading me to conclude that Hagen hit the nail on the head and Sonny knew beyond a doubt that that's how Vito felt, namely, that Tom was as much his son as Sonny.

Am I correct in concluding that Vito felt a stronger familial bond to Tom than did Sonny or Michael? In other words, did Michael and Sonny see Tom as much a brother to them as Vito saw him as a son?
Also - and I don't want to get too inquisitive in one post - but from a family standpoint only, Did Sonny, Michael and Fredo look at Tom the same way?

I believe that Sonny, who brought the orphaned Tom home to begin with, was closest to him. I think that the others thought of him as a brother, but as Sonny's statement shows, blood is blood.

Yes, Vito was very close to Tom, and did love him like a son. In the novel, the point is made that Vito is very proud of Tom, and loves him very much. Puzo writes that Vito would often tell Tom to remember his parents, but more of a reminder to himself than to Tom. I think that men like Vito always put blood first, and he felt that he needed reminding that Tom was not his natural son.

As for Michael, with the exception of the abortion scene with Kay, Michael never, ever did anything without an ulterior motive. Be it his "chat" with Tom, or convincing Kay to marry him, or having Pentangeli make peace with the Rosatos, he knew how to push people's buttons and get them to do his bidding.

I'm not sure about Vito expressing love for Tomin the novel. I don't recall that. In fact, I recalll Puzo's stating that Vito and mama were not loving.

Sonny took Tom in, and Vito agreed, put him through law school and made him consigliere. So there's no doubt about the bond among the three. Even Sonny's statement, "...he's not your father..." shouldn't be taken, IMO, as a lack of feeling so much as an example of Sonny's rashness and unthinking nature (the same fault that led him to shoot off his mouth at the Sollozzo meeting and that helped enable the shooting of Vito).
Michael, on the other hand, was, as dt said, the master manipulator, a cold fish, a controller--and above all, selfish. If Michael didn't want it, approve it, agree to it, etc., it wasn't his responsibility. Tom was Sonny's choice as a brother, not his. Tom was Vito's choice as consigliere, not his. The novel makes this even more clear:
SPOILER:
After the Great Massacre, Kay takes the kids and flees to New Hampshire. Tom goes there at Michael's behest to ask her to come back. She berates Michael's duplicity in standing godfather to Carlo and Connie's son--and whacking Carlo the same day. Tom says it wasn't Michael's idea to stand godfather-- Connie asked him to. The same might be said of whacking Fredo in II: it wasn't his idea to let Fredo back into the compound, it was Connie's.
BTW: In the novel, Vito tells Tom that he doesn't want to formally adopt him because it would be an insult to Tom's father's memory, even though Tom's father abandoned him.

In the novel, Clemenza and Tessio join Tom and Vito in his study after the news of Sonny's murder. As the meeting ends, there is this exchange:

Hagen held the door open for the Don, who paused to look at him for a moment. Then the Don put his hand on Hagen's cheek, embraced him quickly, and said, in Italian, "You've been a good son. You comfort me." Telling Hagen that he had acted properly in this terrible time.

Definitely indicates the emotion of a strong bond to me.

Signor V.

Kly,

You are fairly new to the BB, but quite observant with a depth of understanding. GREAT! There's always room for a new twist on our beloved epic.

Michael is the pen-ultimate politician, manipulator. He plays Frankie like a Strativarios (violin) or is that a Stratocaster? Anyway. Michael was a good student of the Don when he learned to think like the people around him. He certainly learned to act and think like the people around him. The consumate chameleon; Roth, Pentangeli, Fredo, Geary, whoever, Michael could adjust and adapt to the situation and personality.

Two quick observations about the Michael Tom relationship.

1) Someone posetd that he introduced him as his "brother" to Kay, which is true, but in the flashback scene in GFII, which predates the scene with Kay, Michael coldly stares at Tom and says "YOU talk about MY future with MY Father?" (emphasis added).

2) When Mike is leaving for Sicily, he gives Tom a huge bear hug, but Tom only gets a squeeze on the back of the neck. Very telling.

All this talk of Vito's feelings towards Tom...they remind me of a quote I read on one of JG's sites, about the three sons of the Godfather who each inherit one of his virtues (I can't find the quote nor remember it clearly), only Fredo doesn't seem to fit; none of the mentioned virtues seem representative of him, IMO.
So I speculate: Was the character of Tom created in some way to replace Fredo, in any form? Did Puzo do this deliberately to represent something? Did Tom have some of Vito's qualities that were missing in any of his own sons? And is this worthy of a thread of it's own? It's just a theory, but one (I suspect) that has some substance, somehow.
If I could only find the quote...this might seem clearer.

Very interesting thought, Walter! And one that I think hasn't been posted here before (hosanna!). I guess it breaks into two parts:
"Did Puzo do this deliberately to represent something?" At minimum, to demonstrate Sonny's humanity in bringing him in from the street, and the Don's humanity in (in effect) adopting him and making him a part of the family business. Also, Tom's not being Italian may have been meant to show that Vito, like real-life Mafia Dons, often reached out to non-Italians who had something to offer.
"Did Tom have some of Vito's qualities that were missing in any of his own sons?" Like Vito and unlike Sonny, Tom had his temper under control and was able to get his way without threatening or excessive, automatic resort to force. Like Vito and unlike Fredo, Tom was intelligent, thoughtful, and able to look past immediate circumstances. Like Vito and unlike (early) Michael, Tom wanted to be part of the family business. And unlike any of them (early on), Tom was college educated, and a lawyer. Tom was the opening wedge in Vito's long-term plan to make the family "legitimate" and "respectable." In his plan, Michael would have gone to law school and completed the job. We have to wonder what Tom's position would have been after that.

"Did Tom have some of Vito's qualities that were missing in any of his own sons?" Like Vito and unlike Sonny, Tom had his temper under control and was able to get his way in Vito's long-term plan to make the family "legitimate" and "respectable." In his plan, Michael would have gone to law school and completed the job. We have to wonder what Tom's position would have been after that. [/QB][/QUOTE]


To answer the last part first, Tom's position would have been running the legitimate end of the family business as lonng as he wanted to. Then again he was always getting really good job offers, so he would have been taken care of.

As for the interesting theory that Tom brought something the other sons lacked, I think there is another aspect to this that is unexplored. When Vito took Tom in, and sent him to law school, the conventional wisdom in the family was that Sonnny would take over, that Fredo --- well Fredo was..... and that Mike would either help the family go legitimate or not work for the family at all, as he had announced to his father.

That being the case Vito knew that Sonny did not have the intellect or the temperament to run the family, so I think he foresaw that Tom would act as a check on Sonny to keep him in line if and when he took over. Of course events changed all that, and Mike ended up running things, which made Tom's role much different (see above).

[QUOTE]
Like Vito and unlike Sonny, Tom had his temper under control and was able to get his way in Vito's long-term plan to make the family "legitimate" and "respectable." In his plan, Michael would have gone to law school and completed the job. We have to wonder what Tom's position would have been after that. When Vito took Tom in, and sent him to law school, the conventional wisdom in the family was that Sonnny would take over, that Fredo --- well Fredo was..... and that Mike would either help the family go legitimate or not work for the family at all, as he had announced to his father.

That being the case Vito knew that Sonny did not have the intellect or the temperament to run the family, so I think he foresaw that Tom would act as a check on Sonny to keep him in line if and when he took over. Of course events changed all that, and Mike ended up running things, which made Tom's role much different (see above). [/QUOTE

I think that you are on the mark here. I think that Vito knew that Sonny could never run a legitimate side of the family business, as Vito said in the novel about one's destiny, etc. etc. We know that Vito had aspirations of having Michael be the 'legitimate' son who could bring the family some legitimacy, be it as a senator, governer, etc.

But at the same time I believe that Vito was unsure as to what Michael would decide to so in regards to working for or not working for his father, legitimately or otherwise. So I think that Tom was the 'safety valve' for Vito in regards to both Sonny and Michael.

If Michael had decided NOT to be a part of anything involving the family, Tom could step up as the legitimate end of the Corleones or could stay as Sonny's advisor once the Don was gone.

I really think that Michael eventually came to know about VIto's thoughts and plans regarding all of this. And when Michael took over as Don, a part of him knew deep down that he was now 'IN' and could never really be legitimate so that is why he kept Tom out of a lot of things that were illegal, etc. Yes he did this to also protect himself in case anyone under him decided to move against him ("you're the only one that I can trust"), but as pointed out on here many times in the past, Michael had fooled himslef into really believing that he could bring the family to legitimacy, and I think that deep down he knew that Tom had to remain somewhat legitimate to help him with his dream.

But I believe that Vito wanted legitimacy for his family too and that is one of the reasons that he sent Tom to law school, as he knew that Sonny was destined to be a gangster, that Fredo was, well Fredo, and that although Michael was the son most like him, that in itself made Vito realize that because he was most like his father, there was always the chance that Michael would do his own thing and make his own way in life, just like Vito had done.

So Tom was Vito's insurance policy to either help the family legitimately or keep the family in tact after Vito was gone and Sonny took over. Vito's training of Tom and making him into a lawyer was a no lose situation for Vito.


Don Cardi

Excellent points. I, however, am not sure that Vito was content with letting Michael do his own thing or make his own way in life.
In the birthday scene when Michael announced he had enlisted, Tom told him that he and Vito had plans for his future- much to Michael's dismay. Of course, this was in 1941 and maybe the Don no longer had specific plans for Michael by the time of Connie's wedding a few years later
Also, Vito's dreams of Michael becoming governor or senator were expressed in G1.

Here's a question. Could Michael have become a governor or senator? I believe that his family 's criminal reputation would have been a huge obstacle to overcome with the electorate. I especially media focus would be directed particularly to Sonny, whose antics would be magnified.

As DC and dt astutely point out, Vito certainly intended for Tom to be the cool-headed restraint on Sonny when Sonny took over. And that's certainly what it looked like in the movie. But in the novel, Vito intended for Sonny to go to law school. "Don't you want to be a lawyer" Vito asks young Sonny after Clemenza caught him committing a cheap crime. "A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." That begs the question of what would have happened to Tom if Sonny had chosen law (the book isn't clear whether Vito sent Tom to law school before or after Vito's confrontation with Sonny).
Klydon, I don't think Vito ever intended that Michael go his own way and have nothing to do with the family. I believe that if Vito'd had his way, Michael would have gone to law school and then eventually entered politics, to become a senator or governor. From those lofty position, I believe, Vito would have expected Michael to help to legitimize the family by working to legalize gambling and by absorbing the Don's labor rackets into Michael's network of political support and contributions. Sonny would be the head of a decreasingly important "illegitimate" olive oil business.
Could Michael have been elected? As plaw would say, "Difficult, not impossible":
With his law degree and his war-hero record, Michael would have made an attractive candidate. Per the novel, the murders of Sollozzo and McCluskey eventually were pinned on someone else who went to the chair with his secret. Now, being the son of a Mafia Don would have been a big problem for Michael. But Vito also could have been an asset: with his money and political influence, he'd have had no problem in getting Michael nominated to run for Congress from his Little Italy home district. The voters in that district worshipped Vito, and Michael's last name would actually be a big asset there. And his opponent, if he had one, could easily be bought off or intimidated into not running too hard.
Once elected to a seat in the House of Representatives, Michael could have worked hard to establish an exemplary record and to seemingly keep his family at a long, long distance. Running for a big, statewide office like US senator or governor would be a much bigger challenge for Michael. His opponent would be more powerful, not so easily intimidated, more eager to use the family reputation against him. But who knows what secrets might lurk in the opponent's past that Vito and Michael could have unearthed to their own advantage (think of Geary and the hooker)? And Michael also could cry "prejudice"--making his opponent look like a bigot because he tried to tar and feather Michael with his Italian connection. Or, Vito might have been gone and largely forgotten by then. (JFK was elected president despite his father being a rum-runner and a stock market manipulator, as well as a pro-Hitler ambassador to Britain.) I say there'd be a chance for him to win.

That is a very well thought out analysis, turnbull. You previously must have given the subject of Michael's electability a lot of thought prior to my question.

There is no question Michael could have been elected. All the Don would have had to do was donate a ton of money to various causes, and buy his way into "respectability." The analogy to JFK's father's past is a good one. While he was in the bootlegging business, Kennedy's father was also a brilliant stock trader....that is he was heavy into insider trading. Basically he had inside information before the great market crash and right before it he sold everything short. Eventually, when he was rejected by all the social clubs in Boston, he moved his family to Hyannisport, and Bronxville NY and reinvented himself and his family. When FDR first got the Securities laws changed he put Joe Kennedy in charge of the SEC and famously said it takes a crook to catch a crook. I also believe that FDR sent him to England to get him out of the way because Joe himself had ambitions to be president. Of course his being a Nazi sympathizer did him in politically, at which time he turned to his oldest son to fulfill that ambition, and then to JFK after Joe Jr died in the war.

Michael being of the same generation as JFK could have easily won a congressional seat in New York (the mob could have easily fixed that) and then from there use the newspaper people they had on the payroll to create the image he needed. He would serve a couple of terms in Congress, write a book, give lectures at Dartmouth where he went to school, and then make his move for the Senate. I suspect he'd have run as a Democrat from NY City. Back then New York was somewhat more polarized with the Democrats having a complete lock in downstate NY...with all the ethnic groups etc., and the Republicans having a lock upstate. NY Republicans then, like now are far more moderate than their brethren in the south and west, and would have been reluctant to play the "Italian Card" against Michael. He could also publicly distance himself from his father, who by then would be semi retired anyway, and even Sonny (many US presidents have had notorious siblings....LBJ had a brother who was a drunk that he kept viurtual prisoner in the White House. Billy Carter did business with Libya when they were off limits. Nixon's brothers were very shady characters) would not pose much of a problem. They'd have kept Sonny and Fredo in the background. Also back in the 50's and 60's when Michael would have been rising to political power, the media, unlike today, would not necessarily expose the seamier aspects of his lineage, and if it did, he could claim discrimination because he was a Catholic and an Italian. I also think the waspy Kay would have been a political asset, as would Johnny Fontaine (look what Sinatra did for JFK) So yes, Michael could have made it to the White House if they played their cards right.

What has always intrigued me about all this is the dialogue between Vito and Michael toward the end of GF I where Vito says out loud that he wanted Michael to be a Senator or a Governor. Michael makes two remarks which are seemingly contradictory. When Vito seems upset that Michael did not become a senator or governor, Michael blows it off saying that it would just mean he would be "another pezza novante." But then he also says something to the effect that "We'll get there." Is the first line said to
assuage Vito's regrets? I dont know because there is this looming question all over these boards that Michael never really wanted to be totally legitimate, or if he did he fooled himself into believing he was. So possiibly the "We'll get there" was farther from the truth than Michael's belief that Senators and Governors were really unimportant in the scheme of things (after all look what he did to Geary).

Heres a question , would you vote for Michael Corleone being president if it was now , remember his war hero status and the links to the mafia

If Michael Corleone was running for president now he would be about 80 years old, so proibably not.

you know what I mean if he was 35 years old today would you vote?

What? Elect a selfish, cold-hearted, lying, murdering, two-faced bastard President?!

Wait a minute. We did that in 2000 and 2004.



(Just a joke. Really. Please don't throw me to the wolves.)

I agree that Michael would have been electable in a smaller district. Whether he could have won statewide or national office is another matter. Politicians with skeletons tend to hit a ceiling eventually.

One of the main factors in how much his father's business would handicap him is how Vito was viewed by the general public. The breaks down into two main areas:

1. How well-known was Vito to John Q. Public? The movie provides a few clues. His release from the hospital was front page news ("Syndicate Big Shot Vito Corleone Released From Hospital"), so he obviously had a high public profile. Still, even with his first and last names being used, the newspaper still felt the need to identify him, so we can infer that he was not as well-known as, say, Al Capone or John Gotti. Combine that with the fact that Michael has a much less ethnic first name than his dad, and I would suggest that a sizable minority of the voters would not associate Michael with the Corleone Family.

2. Was Vito considered a brutal criminal or a populist outlaw by the general public? I'd lean towards the latter. If the politicians were his friends because he only dealt with "harmless vices," it's reasonable to assume that the politicians believed their constituents felt the same way. Also, the newspaper headline description of Vito ("syndicate big shot") is much softer than Barzini's ("mobster").

Add to those two factors Michael's distinguished military service, the union votes his father can generate, and the friendly press the newspapermen on the payroll would surely provide and I'd say Michael had a decent shot at a political career on some level.

Incidentally, this is assuming that he did not decide to become a mobster himself. Once he shot Sollozzo and McCluskey his political future was, well, shot.

Thanks, Klydon. I run every day, so I ease the tedium by thinking up these cockamamie plots and rationales.

Lol Michael would be great as Prez, he'd send Al Neri to Iraq and the whole country would be ours the next day.

I think as President, Michael would have been most like Nixon- cold, moody, paranoid, manipulative, distrusting. I could see him masterminding the Watergate break-in (he already knew some Cubans from his dealings with Roth).