Isn't Michael Corleone by the end of GF II a dictator, and one with a totalitarianistic (my way or the highway, ride or die) type of mantality. Isn't this doubly interesting considering part of GF II is set in Cuba? I think Puzo and Coppola intentionally set out to draw a simily between a communist dictatorship and dictatorship set up in a totalitarian context as in MC's in GF II.

It's first evidenced when Connie brings home the man she is currently seeing and Michael, the ruler of his world, the “family”, denies her request to marry without even getting to know anything about him.

I think Hagan asks "Do you have to kill everyone" or something like that and Michael says "No, only my enemies" in GF II. His ideology is clearly one that has served him well in the past in GF I with dispelling justice and a sense of equality. But in GF II it results in tragedy.

Doesn't communism employed in a country in a strict context produce an overall lower standard of living and quality of life than a more flexible capitalist system?

Getting back to GF II. Here are my facts:

Pantangeli (who was always a loyal family member) goes to the FBI after the botched hit with the notion that Michael wanted him dead. He then digresses from that position when he sees his brother with Michael at the hearing. I think this shows he is still loyal to the family and decides against this role. He is no enemy. Michael kills him.

Fredo (who is weak willed and not as sharp as the others) is blinded by greed and niavety and allow the hit on Michael to go through. He is then killed when it is clear to everyone that Fredo is completely an innocent, who was dupped. He is much like a child and has many qualities of a child as well. It should also be noted that

Finally Roth. Well he was a bastard and he did try to screw Mike over. It was unnecessary since Roth would die and was in custody with the authorities. I think Mike only did it to prove a point at the expense of one of his top guys Rocky Lampone, another waste.

So we have 3 waste due to Michael’s exercise of his might as the leader and dictator of his world. All 3 in a sense were being punished for living under a system with a ruler with absolute power and grasp and a system of thought in both that are adhered to even when their usefulness is obviously proven to be negated.

Just an Idea, I was wonder what ya’ll thought about it.

I don't see any connection between the Corleones and communism. I might see it more like fascism, or dirty capitalism - GF1 begins with "I believe in America." GF themes are mostly based on reallife. And the reallife mob was in Cuba and controlled gambling before Castro kicked them out. Expanding to Cuba was a logical choice for a mob family that controlled gambling in the 1950s.


Interesingly, one of the deleted scenes in GF1 DVD seems to show Michael and his bodyguards in Italy passing by pro-communist demonstration. So perhaps they wanted to expunge extraneous references to Communism?

Finally, in GF2 during the Pentangeli and Hagen prison yard walk scene, Pentangeli does compare the family to the Roman empire. So that's a closer comparison - "after all, we are not communists."

By the nature of his rule, you can link Michael's "hand" to almost any form of leadership in history - Greeks and Romans in ancient times, the rule of the Catholic Church thereafter, and finally to the more modern rulers of the world: Western Europe, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. A comparison can be drawn between Michael to any leader with access to the "button" and the power to push it.

In my opinion, the Cuban backdrop in GFII provides a vivid and relevant backdrop to the story, but is not a direct metaphor between Michael's rule and facsism/communism.

I also don't see any connection between the Corleones and communism.
But you're right:
-It was bad that he killed Fredo, Frankie (who committed suicide in order of the Corleones) and Rocco.

The killing of Roth was personal, because he dont have any more power. Micheal had Rocco killed for a dieing, worthless, old bastard.
That never makes sense to me.

I guess I was being a little too liberal trying to make an extraneous connection between communism. The only connection I can make was the ideological one, Mike's conviction that all his enemies must go and Communism in and of itself being solidified in Cuba, both resulting in generally a negative impact on the people.

But the point I was really trying to make was that they are both dictatorships and for Mike's it's his way or the highway and totalitarianistic at that.

UnderBoss, you're certainly entitled to make a connection between Michael's rule over his criminal empire and any communist's or other totalitarian's rule over his country. But I think Puzo's and FFC's intent with the Cuban episode was to provide a rich, vivid, interesting continuation of the long, superb battle between Roth and Michael. It's also historically accurate: Fulgencio Batista permitted Meyer Lansky (the Roth character) to organize gambling in Havana, and to bring his Mafia pals in, in return for bribes. The evocation of Havana on the eve of Castro's takeover is so supremely authentic that serious professors of history encourage their students to watch GFII to get an accurate feeling for the time and place.
Returning to the plot:
Fredo can't be "completely innocent" if, as you say, he was blinded by greed and allowed the plot to go through. Many people here (not all) believe Fredo opened the blinds to Michael's bedroom. Why would he do this, if not to give Roth's gunmen a clear shot at Michael?
By "loyal to the family," did you mean that Pentangeli changed his testimony at the last minute because he was really loyal to the Corleone Family after all? If so, I disagree. His brother's presence at the hearing shamed him into remembering his vows of omerta. Some people here believe that there was an implicit threat against Frankie's brother and Frankie's family in Sicily. I agree that, at that point, Frankie was no longer a threat to Michael. But Michael never forgave an enemy because doing so would show a "soft" side that might encourage other enemies to think they could get away with it.
Michael wasn't convinced that Roth was going to die. Earlier, Michael said, "He's been dying of that same heart attack for 20 years." Roth had proven himself too dangerous and too wily to be permitted to live. The fact that the Feds had him didn't mean that he was going to jail for the rest of his life--or if he did, that he wouldn't have been able to try yet another plot against Michael.
(BTW: the real-life Meyer Lansky was arrested at Miami airport on a drug charge (carrying a prescription ulcer medication without a prescription) and for tax evasion. He beat both raps. The scene in GFII is an absolutely picture-perfect reproduction of Lansky's return to America from Israel and South America, except that Lansky didn't get shot.)

True Turnbull, I think FFC and MP left out alot, which is great for conjecture. On the one hand it is totally within Fredo's character profile to do something that stupid. Now he does admit that perhaps he was blinded by greed because as he put it "There was something in it for him". The extent of what he knows and how much he contributed to the hit, I.e. the curtains is still up for conjecture. I want to bring up the point of Fredo because it's interesting that in GF, Fredo's weakness (gun fumbling) caused the extent of the hit to transpire. In GF II, Fredo's weakness again caused the hit to follow through. Now it isn not my contention that Fredo wasn't the main reason for the hit. I think he wasn't completly fooled, he was partically fooled but he mainly fooled himself, due to his weakness and greed.

Pentangeli, did double cross him as well. But the double cross, was in a sense "reasonable", since he was under the complete impression that he would be dead and Michael wanted to kill him. It was a survival reaction. This is a falsehood of course, but still the truth is that he feared for his life. The Rozotto Brothers and Roth were the true enemies and Pentangeli, had he known the truth, would still have remained loyal. He was in a sense loyal even in the end, because he didnt' follow through with his action of testifying.

They both did in a sense cause shit and did in a very loose sense betray him, but both of them in a sense repented. Fredo, by returning in trust to his brother and Pentangeli by adhering to Omerta and then ultimatly killing himself out of tradition and for his family.

Roth deserved to die in my opinion. And a point was made with all 3 murders. Fredo was the most tragic of course. All 3 murders were carried out to further the fear Michael had inspired in all his competitors. However 2 of them, Fredo and Pentangeli were in a very absolute sense carried out in a vain sense since both of them in a sense made a mistake, a mistake based on circumstance and both of them in a sense repented and tried to reaffirm their loyalty.

I think this highlights the tragedy of a stringent ideology applied with total rigidity within the context of a dictatorship.

UB, you bring out so many good points. All mafia families are pretty much dictatorships.There really isnt a joint power thing. Theres the boss, and all of his underlings. Boss goes to jail,next guy takes his place.Sort of like a monarchy too.

Thanks DSC, I've been reading your posts and much respect on all your perspectives as well.

It was just my observation that Michael's rulership results in more inequalities in his "kingdom", in a sense compared to that of Vito's. Vito was a far more personable leader which in and of itself requires patience, compassion and flexibility on all issues, etc. The later of which (flexibility) Michael doesn't have on the issue of traitors, of which entails a lack of compassion. This stringent way of looking at things ultimatly pushes everyone away.

Vito was compassionate. Michael and Vito has a dispassionate way of addressing things of concern, which allows them to look at them logically. By GF II Michael certainly is uncompassionate to many things, most notably his family, Fredo (murdered), Connie (the wedding blessing withheld, although this can be argued). He is certainly totalitarianistic in his approach and this highlights the dictatorial power and potential abuses of it.

Sorry just to clarify one thing, it's my contention, that this dispassionate way of looking at things by GF II has made MC a little hard in the compassion department.

GF2 was supposed to show the diffrences between Mike and Vito, and to show that Mike was not his father's son. One way FFC did that was to show the family side of Mike(or lack thereof.)Mike, who never wanted to get into the business in the first place, became so submerged in the business, that he lost his family. He killed his brother, his wife left him,etc,etc.I never really thought about it in terms of Mike abusing his power, but you make a valid point. He became so caught up in the power that he had in the business that he lost his family.

I think the primary difference as well is Vito has in his childhood grown up with the Mafia and how a dishonourable approach to an "honorable" system will lead to greater suffering. He as a result has A) accepted the life for what it can be and B) has injected his own spin on the "life", seen the inherent good that go along with the system, the honor, the freedom. Vito in essence is able by his acceptance of one extreme of the "life" able to take a new spin on the whole system. He still is a criminal but it's my contention that FFC and MP have focused on his positive contributions due to the fact that he is noble regardless of the life he leads.

Mike on the other hand was an outsider thrust into a world he did know about, but he still wasn't fully submerged in. He thus perhaps lost the ultimate teaching of Vito. Be reasonable, this is shown in GF II to he his one short falling. He killed Fredo, Roth, all these people who in my opinion were very weak and punished by their crimes. Roth was in custody, Pentangeli a prisoner, Fredo, ousted from the family. They all were punished, Mike took them all out based on principle, not reasonable.