Hagen's removal as Consigliere was a move made by both Michael and Vito. On the surface, the premise of the move was that Tom was not a wartime consigliere, which was true. A deeper reason for this move was implied (in the novel) but never actually completely brought to the surface. Michael and Vito felt that Tom needed to have no part or role whatsoever in Michael's move to take out the Family heads. The implication is that Tom needed to be removed because Tom sat behind Vito (figuratively and literally) when he swore on the souls of his grandchildren that, as long as he was not provoked, he would not be the one to break the peace, and thus a party to "Vito's promise".

Though Vito made this peace that weakened him for a moment in time, his master plan was to: A) get Michael back in one piece B)secretly rebuild the family from within (who says you don't need to pay attention to your own family...) and ultimately get his revenge against the Dons that forced him into doing something against his will. Tom referred to the Don's plan as masterful riddle that he couldn't quite figure out, but ultimately was able to once he put on his Sicilian thinking cap.

My questions: 1. Did Don Vito break his promise and code of honor? Though Michael accepted full responsibility for the planning and carrying out of the hits, it was Vito that first conceptualized the move-long before Michael's return. Was Tom's removal and Michael's insistence that it was he that was responsible the technicality that Vito hung his hat on? Can we attribute Mary's death to Vito's actions?

Vito was a gangster and wasn't concerned with keeping his word. Besides, the novel states that Barzini had previously broken the agreement. Vito may have sought a technicality to esculpate himself which conflicts with the novel which states that Vito planned a lot of it.

Someone's murder is attributable to the one who performs the murder.

Perfectly worded, Olivant.

It never ceases to amaze me that, when viewing these films (or following the mob in real life, for that matter), so many people can call a murderer honorable as long as he's not a liar. It's a silly distinction.

A subtle and insightful point, PP. I think the practical reason was that the objective of the move to Nevada was to "legitimize" the Corleone family. And so Tom, as the family's front-man in Nevada, needed to be physically removed from the Great Massacre of 1955. If memory serves, the novel said he spent some months by himself in Nevada prior to the massacre setting things up. But Vito's death put him back (temporarily) in the consigliere role.



Vito didn't break his promise because he died before The Great Massacre. But you could argue with conviction that Vito was complicit in what was to come because he brought Michael back and groomed him to be his successor. Vito had to know that Michael would be regarded by the other Dons as a weak successor, and that unless he moved decisevly against the other Dons, he'd be killed, and the family subordinated to others. How could he not have had something very much like The Great Massacre in mind for Michael--upon whom Vito's promise wasn't binding? Again, if memory serves, Michael flat-out tells Vito that he his to have no part in what is going to happen, otherwise Michael will quit the family and go his own way. Vito didn't utter a peep--meaning he was complicit.

Are you two talking about a different Don Vito Corleone?

After the Don swears that he will not be the one to break the peace he says "This is my word, this is my honor. There are those of you here who know I have never betrayed either".

The Don was a man that defined himself by his code and the honor of his word. Those words would not have been said by the Don, particularly in that forum, if they were not true.

Vito did NOT "break his promise and code of honor", because the peace was not broken while he was alive, neither by him nor any of the other Families.

However he had to know that once he was gone, then others would most certainly move in to break the peace and whoever that was, their first logical move would be to assassinate Vito's successor...Michael. Therefore, he had to have advised Michael of what was to come, and plan accordingly. But make no mistake, every single murder committed on that baptism/massacre day was on Michael's order, not Vito's ... regardless of who 'conceptualized' the move.

"Can we attribute Mary's death to Vito's actions?"

Probably not, since it occurred some 20+ years after Vito's own death.

But suppose for the sake of discussion we venture out on a limb and say that yes, Vito's actions 'indirectly' led to Mary's death.

In that case, we could also justifiably attribute Fredo's death to Vito's actions.

But of course...that's another thread!

Maybe.

Apple

Vito did NOT "break his promise and code of honor", because the peace was not broken while he was alive, neither by him nor any of the other Families.

However he had to know that once he was gone, then others would most certainly move in to break the peace and whoever that was, their first logical move would be to assassinate Vito's successor...Michael. Therefore, he had to have advised Michael of what was to come, and plan accordingly. But make no mistake, every single murder committed on that baptism/massacre day was on Michael's order, not Vito's ... regardless of who 'conceptualized' the move.

Michael was indeed the Don that gave the order for these hits- No two ways about it. But that’s also because that’s the way that Vito set things up. Though Vito was aging and may have genuinely enjoyed planting in his garden, his retirement and turning things completely over was a convenient way of implementing his plan and removing himself at the same time.

I don’t think that Vito not being alive when the hits took place completely gives him a free pass. Can a code of honor be broken after one dies? I guess it would depend on the particular code. We’ll never know for certain exactly what the Don’s was- but we know that it was something very important to him. Whether or not you think he broke his promise, you must admit that he came awfufully close. Mary’s death may be a completely unrelated occurrence. Or, it may be an answer to the question.

Well, of course it was. I doubt anybody is saying it wasn't.

His goal after Sonny's death was to end the war, and get Michael home. At the meeting, he swore on the souls of his grandchildren that he would not be the one to break the peace.

And he kept his word.

Never did he say though, that he would not have a hand in planning what might occur after his own death.



Actually, yes it does. (If 'free pass' is even what you can call it). Since he wasn't alive when the peace was broken, he did not break his promise.




Can you explain how.

Consider that Vito “gave his honor that he will never seek vengeance and that he will leave with a pure heart” – presumably to mean the promise was as pure as his heart.

Arguably, Vito’s pledge to not seek vengeance may have been broken the moment it was said as the vengeance seeking plan laid out for Michael (quite possibly created before or even at the meeting) was riddled with vengeance conceived of by Vito. If we generally agree that Vito was complicit, we can conclude that he sought vengeance. I think that this would qualify as a pledge breaking.

If we are discussing the film...

The only time Vito mentions 'vengeance' in that meeting is when he forgoes the vengeance of Sonny's death...after asking Tattaglia if vengeance will get him his own son back. Then he swears he will not break the peace. And he never does, so he keeps his word.

As for laid out 'plans', it can be argued that every man in that room would soon begin making their own 'plans' for the future. And they all knew it. It was just a matter of who would 'out-plan' all the rest.

But for the moment, the purpose of the meeting was to end the war, make peace and proceed with the narcotics venture. And that is exactly what happened.

As for this 'vengeance' thing you seem to be obsessed with...there is that lovely little deleted scene that I always wish had been left in, the 'What about Sonny, what about Sicily...??' exchange between Vito & Michael. It indicates that it is Michael who may be more interested in vengeance...and Vito shows him how to get it, but never actually breaks his own word to the other Dons.

Regardless of the fact that Vito may not have performed any specific act that broke the peace and thus his word, he fully intended to do so. The foundation and planning of the Potemkin Village which was inhabited by Mike's orchestrated acts of murder was constructed by Vito. It was no different than the many times that Vito instructed Tessio or Clemenza to persuade someone or make someone disappear. Vito's finderprints were all over the massacre.

Vito's fingerprints were all over the massacre, yes. He had a hand in 'constructing' it, yes. (Again, nobody's denying any of that.) Without Vito's advice & guidance over the preceding years, Michael may never have been able to pull it off.

I suppose we could also say that Barzini's 'fingerprints' were also all over Tessio, who ended up being the one to set up Michael for assassination, since he was always 'smarter'.

However, since it all occurred AFTER Vito's death and not during his 'semi-retirement'...then there is no doubt that Vito kept his promise and kept the peace.

In fact, so did Barzini and ALL the Dons present at that meeting...for it was not until after the death of Don Vito Corleone did anyone else make a move.

Vito's death was unexpected. Surely, you don't contend that Mike was going to wait until Vito died before he murdered the Dons. Are you saying that had Vito lived to be 90 then there would not have been any massacre in '55 or '59' or '62, etc? I reiterate: one cannot plan a murder and then expect to be separated from its implementation by someone else. Law and morality do not admit to such a separation.

Law and morality might be an odd thing to discuss when referring to the Corleone Family.

While Vito's death was unexpected, the fact remains that the murders occurred afterwards, therefore he did not break the peace.

Good point that Michael may not have waited had Vito lived for another 5 years....but also may not have made the first move toward breaking the peace (which was all Vito had promised).

In their last talk, Vito advised Michael of the meeting that would be planned to set up his assassination, and that whoever approached him about it was the traitor. It just so happened that Tessio approached Michael after Vito's 'unexpected' death (and before Vito was even in his grave, for that matter).

Surely, you don't contend that Barzini & Tessio were going to wait until Vito died before eliminating Michael...and therefore breaking the peace initiated by his father. Are you saying that had Vito lived to be 90 then everyone would've left Michael alone, content with the prosperity brought on by the narcotics agreement?

Or in the interest of 'law and morality' should Vito have stood by and awaited the almost certain murder of another son without implementing any plan based upon his own knowledge and experience?

Apple

The moment Vito started to plan revenge, he broke the peace.

You could possibly argue that IF the murders had taken place while Vito was alive, AND if Michael hadn't been assassinated (or set up for assassination) first.

Two big 'ifs' that never came to be.

And I'm not so sure that it was 'revenge' he was planning so much as preservation of his empire and the life of his son.
I believe it was Michael who was more interested in revenge.

But regardless of what he planned with Michael and regardless of how brilliant that plan was...Vito was not the one to break the peace made on the day of the meeting with the other Families.

Exactly right Apple.

After Michael asks that question of Vito, his father's reply is "I swore that I would never break the peace." to which Micheal eventually replies " Well -- you gave your word that you wouldn't break the peace, I didn't give mine. You don't have to have any part -- I take all responsibility."


A deleted scene that I strongly feel needed to be left in the movie!

But Vito did have a gigantic part. He states in the novel: "I want nothing to break the peace no matter what the provocation UNTIL we've found a way to bring Michael home." As Tom muses: "All pointed to a day of reckoning in the future." As Mike states in the novel: "The old man planned alot of it." And as far as revenge goes, Tom tells Vito "You say you don't want ... revenge... I don't believe that."

The distinction ya'll make between conspiracy and overt acts doesn't wash.

"Vengeance" adds a "moral" overlay to what is essentially the law of the jungle that prevails in organized crime. From the moment Michael returned from Sicily to become head of the family, it was kill or be killed. The other families, taking their cue from Vito's weakness in giving into the drugs business, saw the Corleones as vulnerable, and Michael as an apparently unready heir, and an easy target. Michael knew it, Vito knew it. That doesn't excuse Michael because, in the (later) words of Hyman Roth: "This...is the business...we've chosen."

As for "breaking the peace": Barzini arguably broke the peace by arbitrarily moving in on Corelone territories. And, 'twas he who planned to kill Michael, even though he couldn't have known what Vito and Michael were planning.

It does wash.

While all agree Vito assisted Michael in the planning for that "...day of reckoning in the future...", nothing happened while he was alive (aside from Barzini's planning as well).

And even after he was dead, it was Tessio's overture to Michael that opened the gates, as Michael knew he would not get out of that meeting alive.

So Vito never was the one to break the peace.

Apple

Okay Board attorneys, chime in here. What do the statutes say about conspiracy and implementing a conspiracy? Are there any priests who are Board members? Chime in on the morality of conspiracy vs. implementation.

You can get all the support you want from 'Board Attorneys'.

If we are thinking of this as simply a matter of law, then yes, by masterminding the massacre with Michael he was just as guilty as those who pulled the trigger.

The law is not what has been in question, and it was obviously of no concern to those characters involved. What has been discussed here is whether or not Vito Corleone broke the peace he made with the other Dons, in order to end the war and get Michael home.

And he did not break the peace.

Apple

What has been discussed here is whether or not Vito Corleone broke the peace he made with the other Dons, in order to end the war and get Michael home.

And he did not break the peace.



That's not the question that was asked. The question is whether the don broke his promise and his code of honor. This is much much harder to define and not the black and white question that you’re choosing to answer. The deleted scene would be a much more valuable source to draw on if it were not deleted. My compliments though for sourcing and referencing it. I remember the first time I saw the scene I was amazed and wished as well that it had remained in the movie.

The facts are: you have absolutely no idea if the Don broke his code and Don Vito’s granddaughter was killed.

It is not hard at all to define, it's been defined throughout the discussion and the answer is no, he did not. He said he would not be the one to break the peace they had made. His word was nothing more, and nothing less that that. Can you define the 'code of honor' that says he was forbidden to plan Barzini's or anyone else's murder once they broke the 'code of honor' you seem so fond of holding Vito to? (Granted, no other man in that room stood and made that pledge the way Vito did. All the more reason to expect that someone would eventually make a move...and to plan accordingly.)



Deleted or not, it is still a valuable source to draw upon because it was eventually included in the Saga, and is therefore now part of the story. (As are all the deleted scenes.)

I've been on this Board a while and have seen people draw upon not only deleted scenes, but also draft transcripts and even their own theories of subplots. If there is a source to be drawn upon for the sake of discussion then it is 'valuable'.



Actually, I do know: The Don did not break his 'code'.

I've mentioned before that it's highly unlikely Mary's accidental killing was a result of anything her grandfather did. What you could say though, is that her tragic, untimely death was directly related to the kind of family that she happened to be born into....which would have put not only Mary, but also her brother and all of her cousins, male and female at the same exact risk.

It's possible though, that you have a minor point there. Had Vito not contributed to the plan to eliminate Barzini and the other Family Heads, Moe Green and the unnamed traitor who turned out to be Tessio...then Michael himself would've been assassinated before ever having a second child with Kay

So, by advising his son on how to survive a conspiracy against him and live to rule the Corleone Empire from a lakehouse in Nevada, Vito paved the way for Mary to be born, grow up and be shot dead in violent crossfire 20 years later.

PrimoPaisan, you are simply brilliant. Welcome to the Gangster BB.

Apple

Consider these words from the Novel:

Michael to Vito: I think its time for me to tell you that what I’m going to do is not purely about out of vengeance for Appollonia and Sonny. It’s the right thing to do…..” “You have no part. You’re not responsible. I take all responsibility.” (similar to the wording in the delted scene you'll note)

Why do Michael and Vito spend so much time convincing each other that it’s Michael’s move not Vito’s? Michael doth protests too much as to whose move it is and why it is being made. Does he do this because his father has given off the vibe that his lean is to weaken and stick to the letter of his word? Was the sign of weakness that Vito communicated to Michael (in the deleted scene) an acting job or was it sincere? I think Vito was genuinely wrestling with his connection to the planned massacre, but knew it had to get done, so he let Michael’s will overwhelm his. Whatever you choose to believe, I think the fact that they had these conversations (deleted scene and wording from novel) brings to light that they were discussing their uneasiness about the subject.

If you interpret Michael’s words in a literal and conventional sense you only get perspective that Michael believes his own words, and thus completely and solely responsible.. The question isn’t whether Michael believes its his responsibility, it’s whether the Don knows if its he still pulling the strings.

You have no clue what the code was; nor what the Don thought and felt in heart about his connection to the masacre. The more that you insist you know for certain the more you come off as 7,000 post bully that can't cite evidence to prove it. Yet somehow you have divine knowledge of what was in Don Vito's mind and soul. Does that come after post 6,999? You should read the book Apple, you may be surprised how you feel about this question.

I wonder how many posts it takes to comprehend the difference between "no" and "know?"

What code of honor?

In the first scene of the Trilogy, Vito seems to establish some sort of code when he admonishes Bonasera for asking for murder in retribution for an assualt which did not kill his daughter.

But, minutes later, Michael tells Kay about Vito using the threat of murder (surely not a bluff) in a financial matter (incidentally, to allow Johnny Fontaine to break his word).

The Dons like to use the code to seperate themselves from common criminals but it's pure hypocrisy, as the code is ignored whenever it would interfere with business.

But, to answer the question, I believe that Vito certainly broke the spirit of the oath he made at the Commission meeting, if not the letter of it.

I guess we could rephrase this question as follows: Would Michael have pulled off these killings while Vito remained alive?

I don't think so becaue Vito was certain that a traitor would
emerge to lull him into coming to a peace conference. This suggests that it would only happen after Michael became Don, and to the world, even though Michael was the heir apparent, there is no question who the Don was. When Fontaine signed the contract for Vegas it was for his godfather, not Michael.
At best the word was out he was "semi-retired."

I think Michael would have done it while Vito lived. The statement quoted from the novel ("you are to have no part in what is to come...") shows he believed Vito would be living when he pulled the trigger.

Also, as I've posted elsewhere, Michael had no intention of turning over the olive oil business to T&C. For one thing, a dual donship never would have worked. For another, Michael needed to neutralize the other NY families, and maintain his own NY muscle, to protect his position in Nevada. Without doing so, he'd be just another "legitimate" casino owner, easy prey for other Mafiosi (not excluding T&C) who did have the muscle to intimidate him.

I agree the T&C concept was not workable, but what do you think would Michael have done if neither of them betrayed him?