Post deleted by I'M GERMAN-IRISH

Although the possibility of an affair between Tom & Sandra has been batted around for years because it was included in a so-called 'draft' screenplay...that detail never made it to the screen version and so it's a moot topic.

Second, if an affair did occur, and if Michael knew about it I'm not certain he'd care enough to either approve or disapprove. And even if he did disapprove, that doesn't necessarily mean he'd call an end to it or even lecture Tom, as he had far more important things on his mind throughout Part II.

Apple

All we know is that Tom had a mistress. The rest was in a draft that never made it to the screen.

Let's for a moment, for discussions sake, say that this version of the rough draft did make it into the movie and that Tom and Sandra were having an affair.

I don't believe, for one moment, that Michael would have allowed an affair between the two of them to go on. I believe that Michael would have demanded that Tom stop having an affair with his brother's widow.

But getting back to the reason that this probably didn't make the movie.

I don't believe that the viewer would buy into an affair between those two. It is my opinion that Tom would have never had an affair with Sonny's widow in the first place. It was not something that Tom would do to disrepect the memory of both Vito and Sonny and the family in general. And Coppola probably knew that the veiwer would never buy into a story that a guy like Tom, who loved Sonny and was true to the Corleone family name, would ever do such a thing.


Don Cardi

Actually I think the idea of Tom having a mistress at all is way out of character. Tom was a straight arrow no nonsense kind of guy, and he was very cautious. I think the line about his mistress in the movie was unfortunate.

dontomasso, I would agree with you on this ordinarily as you've summed up Tom's character pretty well as a straight arrow. However, do you remember the scene in GFI when Tom goes up the stairs to fetch Sonny, who was in the throes of passion with Lucy Mancini? After Sonny says "I'll be right out", Tom has a grin on his face as he leaves. I certainly think that Tom is capable of having an extra marital affair based on this, otherwise he'd be pretty disgusted. But I agree with your assessment when it comes to his character in business. He is indeed a straight shooter

I agree when Michael first referred to a mistress, I was surprised as I thought this was beyond Tom's character. I don't think he was judgmental and was amused by Sonny's comedy with that girl.

Also, Tom grinned when Vito chastised Johnny for crying.

Maybe he was just in a really happy and giddy mood that day.

I think that the idea of an affair between Tom and Sandra is feasible. Sonny was closest to Tom, the one Corleone that Tom felt was truly his brother. I can imagine that Sandra turned to Tom in the aftermath of Sonny's death and things, as they say, could've just happened . On the other hand, I also think that Tom adored Vito, and would have tried to live up to his expectations. Although I'm glad it was left out of the script, that's really the only way I could accept Tom having a mistress.

Ok, so for discussion sake...could you elaborate on WHY it would be such a concern to Michael and why with all the business on his mind which was already alienating him from his family...would he care enough to demand that a Tom/Sandra affair be stopped?

That said...I agree with your assessment of why the whole subject never made it into the film. I always thought it kind've silly myself. Plus I don't think a subplot of an affair between these two would add a single thing to benefit the overall film.

Yes, but you also think that Fredo knew.



Apple

Fredo DID know.

Like I said, it's not impossible that two people would turn to one another in their mutual grief over the loss of someone that they both loved. But it's rather unlikely that Tom would disrespect the Corleone family in such a way. He had the orphan's unquestionable love and loyalty for this family that took him in.

I don't believe that Michael would have allowed an affiar between his step brother and his brother's widow to go on. Michael was like Vito in that he despised infidelity. Michael, like Vito, was old fashioned in the sense that for him ( again like his father ) "there's only my wife."

Now if he felt that way about infidelity, imagine how magnified his feelings would be if an affair was going on between, basically, two members of his family?

Old fashioned Michael would view something like that as an Infamia, as something that would disgrace his family and the Corleone name. He would never allow Sandra and Tom to disgrace his brother's memory. He may have turned his head about Tom having a mistress somewhere else, outside and away from the family, but to allow it to be someone like Sandra, well that would be too close to home, too risky, to close to him and the family. Michael was much smarter than to allow something like that to rip the interior being of the family.

Geez, he went to Las Vegas, without Kay, and he was pissed at Fredo for bringing the girls up to his suite.

Michael became a control freak. And being that he generally frowned upon infidelity, there is no way that he would ever allow Tom to have an affair with his older brother's widow.


Don Cardi

Michael also seemed visibly disgusted when Fredo took the Havanna gang to see Superman. This scene was comical in a sense that Michael seemed so out of his element there.
I think Michael would have found a Tom/Sandra affair about as objectional as a Mary/Vincent affair even though there is no direct formal blood line between Tom and Sonny. The Corleones considered Tom as one of their own.

I'm not sure we have enough evidence to say with any degree of confidence what Michael's feelings on infidelity were.

But even if he found it morally repellant, I don't think that means he would put an end to the affair.

Rather, as a master manipulator, I think he would have filed away the knowledge to use to his advantage later. He only mentions it in the film when he's trying to bully Tom.

True. But in the never-ending (and fun) realm of speculation on our favorite characters, I side with DC and others who surmised that Michael wouldn't have allowed the affair. I think both he and Vito didn't engage in infidelities not because they were "moral" men (hardly!) but because they thought such behavior was "careless" and would distract them from the task at hand and the danger that surrounded them. As Vito (the old sexist) told Michael: "Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men." Michael no doubt took that lesson to heart. And Michael (the hyper-controller) would want everyone around him focused on those tasks and dangers. And, Michael would never permit an "illicit" affair to happen within his family, on the grounds of his compound.

I'm emphasizing "his" because Michael's contoller behavior was especially strong at home. Note his possessive choice of language when he told Tom after the Tahoe shooting, "...and then I'll know who the traitor is in my family"--not "our" family, just seconds after he told Tom that he was his "brother." And, in the boathouse confrontation with Fredo, he says, "I don't want you near my home"--even though Fredo lived on the compound.

As mentioned, we can read into the character whatever suits our fancy, but there's no real evidence in either the film or the novel that Michael 'despised' infidelity. Just because he didn't mess around on his own wife and nor did his father...does not necessarily mean he had an opinion on it either way for others.

Obviously he knew Tom had a mistress, as he referred directly to this in that later scene in GFII. Whether or not it was Sandra we'll never know (up to speculation, I guess). But despite your intelligent arguments Don Cardi & Turnbull...there's really no reason to suspect he would've put a stop to such an affair simply to honor his brother's memory. Michael Corleone had far too much more on his mind. It's possible that even if he might've disapproved, the memory Sonny's known infidelities would obliterate any defense of his 'honor'.

And forget about Michael...personally, I don't think it was in Tom's character to conduct and affair with his brother's widow! If the idea was beaten around at one time by FFC/Puzo, it is quite fortunate they dropped because it never would've been believable in the film.

Oh...and the reason Michael got pissed at Fredo for having the girls in the hotel is that he was there strictly on business. He had no interest nor any time to waste on a party.

Now...Fredo not knowing he was about to die, there's PLENTY of evidence of that, in his behavior and overall character throughout GF and GFII.

Apple

From simply watching the movies, the idea of Tom having any mistress at all has always rubbed me the wrong way.

We are shown little of Tom's family life (virtually nothing in GFII), but we know he is a married family man. When Michael makes his comment about the mistress, it comes totally out of left field. If there had been any foreshadowing of this in the plot up to that point, then, one could argue, Mario Puzo and FFC could take their characters in any direction they wanted to - and have it flow as part of the storyline. But, for this to have worked, we would have needed something - anything - before Michael's line to let us know Tom was cheating. We get nothing at all, so it comes across as out of character for Tom - as well as being "shoehorned" in for no real reason.

They certainly could have removed "...and your mistress" in the editing room and the film would have been better off IMO.

Signor V.

--------------------
"Orson fall down?"

Actually I think the line does work in context of what Michael was doing to Tom in that scene. The fact that he blurts it out right in front of Neri & Rocco is as much a shock to Tom as it supposedly is to us. The addition of 'mistress' to Michael's confrontation adds even more dimension to his unrelieved belittling of his loyal brother throughout the movie. I would guess it was thrown into the dialogue purposely for that very reason.

And look...we know from earlier scenes (such as the Geary setup) that Tom Hagen is no saint. While it's evident that he loves his wife and family and is a good provider, he's no more above having a little on the side than any other businessman.

Apple

The line about the mistress was put there to show us that Michael was on top of and knew EVERYTHING that was going on.

It was Michael's way of telling not only Tom, but indirectly telling those who were also in the room, that no one could hide anything from him without him finding out.
That he, Michael, knew everything that his people did, be it within the family business or in their own personal lives. It was his way of sending a message to Rocco and Neri. It was to display to those around Michael that they should never underestimate his ability to remain aware of everything that they did in their lives.

The line was left in to show how egotistical Michael had become, how he became this obsessive control freak. How he was in 'total' control of everyone and everything around him. Michael said that line to show that even something like an extramarital affair by one of his people could not be kept a secret from him. He needed to show that he was the powerful and almighty Don who controlled and knew everything that there was to know about his people.


Don Cardi

This brings up a question I've thought about.

In addition to mentioning the mistress to Tom, Michael also referred to a job offer that Tom explained he had turned down.

If Tom had told Michael prior to this meeting that he was going to break from the family and pursue other opportunities in Vegas (that wouldn't have conflicted with Michael's interests for arguments sake), would Michael have viewed this as betrayal? Would this have resulted in Tom's death?

Michael said to Tom that he could take his wife, family and mistress to Las Vegas and live his life, but did he mean it? He was adept at lying.

That said...I agree with your assessment of why the whole subject never made it into the film. I always thought it kind've silly myself. Plus I don't think a subplot of an affair between these two would add a single thing to benefit the overall film.


I sooo agree with that. I mean the whole bulk of the film relies on the subject of Micheal,his position as Don,ect. Do we really need to get sucked in to some soap-operaesqe subplot about Tom and Sandra being "drawn together"? Not only would that be a corny and unessesary apendage, but the whole thought of it is--let just sum it up for you--EWWWWWW.Not in the sense that these to indaviduals are discustingly unattractive,but rather in the sense that I think there is a line to be crossed when your telling a story;and that idea and that notion on the charecter's part would be careless and sleazy. Micheal doesn't play careless OR sleazy. A man like Tom should find the idea of marking Sonny's territory out of the question. It's just icky,and it does disrespect the memory of Sonny and Vito,and not to metion people who are living. Like Sonny's children,who might have called Tom "Uncle" at one point. EEEEEWWWWWWWW. In conclution when Micheal mention's Tom's "mistress" to him,it seems too impersanal and vaige to deduced that the latter is anyone but just some no name woman,and not (thank God)Sandra. That idea IS pointless and "silly" and would have done nothing to improve the story,only just add on dead wait,and melodramatics.The is the Godfather II,not "As the World turns".

I agree, which is why it would be more in his character to have an affair with Sonny's Widow.

It's not like Tom was screwing some young stalret. He had a relationship with someone close to him.

Was Sandra still living on the compound after Sonny's passing or was she living somewhere else?

Why should Tom give a rats ass if Mike knew or didn't know who he was having an affair with as many times as he has hurt Tom.

I certainly do not give a RATS ASS how much Tom is hurt. There are lines not to cross.He would be a hell of a lot more hurt if Sonny was in there waching him screw Sandra lets say. Don't play games,that's wack yo.

I certainly do not give a RATS ASS how much Tom is hurt. There are lines not to cross.He would be a hell of a lot more hurt if Sonny was in there waching him screw Sandra lets say. Don't play games,that's wack yo.

oooops!

Did Michael say to Tom in Part II, "Take your family and your mistress and move them to Las Vegas."? I think that was supposed to be part of the subplot about the mistress that was later edited out.

If Michael disapproved, it was none of his business. There were much more important things for him to think about, like Roth, etc.

In the original Godfather book, it says Sonny's wife Sandra took the kids and moved to Florida, where her parents still lived.

Well as we know, not everything that happened in the original book turned out to be so in the movie(s).

Still, there is absolutely NO credible evidence, nor the slightest suggestion in either GF or GFII that Tom ended up in an affair with Sonny's widow.

In the deleted scene where Michael is talking to his niece and her fiance', there appears to be a reaction from each of them when Michael mentions Sonny's death. Still, this gives no indication that they were involved in a romance.

AppleOnYa

He said that if Tom didn't want to "come along with me in these things I have to do," then he could take his wife and his mistress and move to Vegas. I doubt that Michael would regard anything that happened to anyone connected to him as none of his business--whether it was or not.

But I think part of that purpose was to show us how Neri was maneuvering to push Tom out and become Michael's #2 guy. Note that when Michael remarks about Tom's mistress, the camera focuses on Neri--and the smug look on his face that tells us that Michael learned about the mistress from Neri. Earlier in that scene, Neri led the discussion of Roth's whereabouts--something I would have expected Tom to do.