Vito, like other smart Dons, lived a low-profile life and had a legitimate front—Genco Pura Olive Oil—to cover him and provide a source of taxable income to keep the IRS at bay. But by II Michael was leading a high-profile public life—attest the cast of thousands at Anthony’s party and his “magnificent endowment” to the State University. And, by III, he seemed intent on being known far and wide as one of America’s prime philanthropists. He even invited the media to cover his party after being invested as a Knight of St. Sebastian.

This raises a question: What was the “legitimate” source of his wealth that enabled him to go public with his lavish philanthropy and lead a high-profile life? In III, Abbandando tells the media that he “sold the casinos.” But when he testified at the Senate hearings in II, he never admitted to having a big stake in the casinos: he said he “owned some stock in the hotels…I also own stock in IBM and ITT.” So, what was the source or cover for the “legitimate” money that enabled his high-profile philanthropy in II and III?

Excellent question TB. Of course, we are only exposed to part of the Corleone wealth producing empire, legitimate or not. As the novel points out, the Corleones owned valuable real estate, a construction firm, and Genco Pura Oil (despite claims that they turned it over to Clemenza). Their wall street investments were disguised, so I'm not sure if proceeds from those were legitimate or not. But he must have had other legitimate stock and bond investments. However, I just don't see any Don displaying his wealth like Michael did no matter what his intentions were. To do so is justing begging the IRS to probe further (I have never bought into Michael's "legitimacy" pursuit).

At the Senate hearing, he is still very much the Don, so he probably wanted to minimize his description of his role in Las Vegas. BY III, it is probably a moot point.

My guess is the casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City which were perfectly legitimte businesses. Of course in real life I do not think Atlantic City ever made tons of money, but I am not sure.

I think he "sold all the casinos" right before he spoke with the archbishop. Assuming he bought in Nevada in the 50's, and
expanded his operations by moving Klingman and Roth out, by 1977 the value of them would have been significant, especially if he sold to huge corporations as really happened in Vegas.
This would also explain Michael paying back his investors at the meeting in Atlantic City just before the chopper attack.

Michael approached the church about Immobiliere. He offered a bribe. What didn't he know or understand?

He didn't understand that the Archbishop and the Immobiliare people would double cross him.

Wasn't Mary working in the family business....running a charity or something?

He still must've been living off the Genco money, the profits from the casinos and other real estate deals.

Well, I think that Michael saw that they were crooks, but couldn't believe that the Archbishop et al. would dare to try to defraud a big bad gangster like himself. Which really was an amazingly stupid move in retrospect...

I also think that Michael's fortune could have been completely legitimate by this time. It is not clear in the movies, but the book does strongly suggest that he was a talented businessman in the normal sense too, so after GF II he could have payed his taxes and still become very rich.

In Michael's desperate search or "legitimacy" -- or his definition of it -- he became pretty naive in many respects, and being surprised by the corruption of the Catholic Church was a prime example of that. He pinned all his hopes for legitimacy on the church and his investment in it. He thought he could buy forgiveness for his past sins.

Although I don't buy that Michael, a cunning and ruthless Don in the earlier films, could be so naive, we have to accept the jarring character changes he went through in the time between II and III. So in that regards, it makes sense.

And re: the revenge murders, Michael always had a warped sense of right and wrong, and this muddling of morals allowed him to sleep at night...until he was haunted by his sins. But this muddling of morals is exemplified in Michael "washing his hands" of the family and giving Vincent power.

But really, no half-way worldly person would have been that naive, leave alone somebody like Michael. Catholic Church cooperated with the Nazis, for Pete's sake, and from his own sojourn in Sicily as a fugitive Michael would have known first hand that it always cooperated with the Mafia too.

Also, was Michael really naive? His efforts to get out of LCN completely and cut the last connections seem nearly prescient given that the persecution of it had already intensified by this point historically and in a few more years it would start going down hard.
He couldn't do so before because of the casino business, in which Mafia was still very involved at the time.

Having seen The Wire, which is largely based on experiences of real police detectives versus drug dealers of Baltimore, getting out of the game is what many successful criminals try to do once they reach a certain point, though few manage.



However we try to turn it, the whole buying legitimacy from the Church issue makes no sense, since Mike had to already be legitimate to broker the Immobiliare deal in his own name and in no way could he have been blind enough to think of a church as a pure institution.
In fact, didn't he go to talk to Lamberti because Lamberti was the only half-way honest cardinal around?

And when Michael thought up the deal, he still considered himself irredeemable too, didn't he?

IMHO, Michael must have seen that Gilday was a crook (hard to miss, really), but counted on it both to get the Archpishop to go along with the deal and to keep him from trying to trick a big bad gangster like himself.
Basically, Michael's mistake was in counting on his rep to make it work, while being unwilling to back it up the implicit threat with actions. A honest businessman would have backed off once Gilday's shadiness became evident.



Yea, another thing that didn't work for me. It is clearly an allusion to Vito keeping the letter of his word not to seek vengeance, while charging Michael to achieve it. But Michael made his promise to God and you don't expect God to let you go on a technicality.

Anyway, I guess I'll have to be highly unoriginal and start a thread on why GF III didn't work for me. Particularly since I have now heard Coppola's and Pacino's comments on why they thought people disliked the film and they just irritated me, because IMHO it isn't about that at all.

I didn't have to wait for it, I had no heightened expectations and I think that Michael being regretful and somewhat repentant as well as getting his comeuppance for the life of crime was the most interesting and poignant part of the movie. It is how Coppola had gone around showing it that drags the film down, IMHO.

These claims about Michael's naivete about the Church make no sense. He was prepared to offer Gilday a bribe. He assented to a bribe.

True. I thought about that as I was writing my post. But there had to be something with the church that Michael saw as a way to redemption. He could have invested his money into any number of legit companies. Yet he chose the church.

I really need to watch these movies again. It's time.

No, he chose Immobiliere.

Michael needed the final recognition from the church itself to make himself and others believe that he truly had become an honest citizen. Michael's knighthood could also have been be a strategic move to convince the church to sell their share in Immobiliare to him.

This actually happened in real life too with Joseph Profaci. Profaci ultimately failed in getting this recognition, but he almost got himself a knighthood.

Why? Michael wasn't particularly religious (and in books he wasn't religious at all) until Lamberto convinced him to confess and he considered himself irredeemable. He had to know that Church could become involved in extremely shady dealings.
No, I don't see it. Philanthropy, yes, I see how it would accomplish both these things, but recognition by the Church? In 1979? I don't see it.

Maybe it was a strategic move re: Immobiliare.



But it happened in the 40-ties, IIRC - big difference. Also, Profaci was heavily involved in crime until his death and needed it as a "beard". He was very religious, too, however he managed to reconcile it with his life choices.

Michael in GF III seemed to be doing very well solely with legitimate business, since he was, presumably, a genuinely good businessman. Books suggested that as well.

Well given that in the novel, I think (forget if it's in the film), Clemenza tells Kay that "Mr. Corleone is the biggest importer of Italian Olive Oil in the states" it's not unreasonable that by the time Part III rolls around (Which takes place when, 1979? I forget...) Michael is pretty darn wealthy if he still maintained control or at least stock in the Genco Pura Company.

In GIII, Michael openly owned several casinos in Nevada, until he sold them. And casinos were immensely profitable at the time. So, he didn't even need Genco Oil to be very wealthy.

I think Genco Olive Oil could have been given to Don Altobello.