"We're not murderers"

One of the joys of GF is the ingenious and compressed lesson in justice that Vito gives Bonasera in the opening scene. Vito bridles over being asked to “do murder for money.” “I ask you for justice,” Bonasera replies. “That is not justice—your daughter is still alive,” says Vito, perhaps implying that he lived by a code based in the Biblical “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” and its modern equivalent, “let the punishment fit the crime.” At the end of the scene, he tells Bonasera, “…accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.” Any Sicilian-born person of Bonasera’s generation would understand that “justice” isn’t a right conferred by law or government, but a gift from someone who has the power to grant justice. Now Vito made Bonasera understand that, in matters of official “justice,” the America that he believed in wasn’t any different than Sicily.

As if to cap his code of ethics, Vito tells Tom, “We’re not murderers.” In GF, we never see Vito order a murder, much less commit one with his own hands. The beating of the two punks was tit-for-tat for their beating of Bonasera’s daughter. Beheading Khartoum was a disgusting act of animal cruelty, but Khartoum was a surrogate for Woltz, who was hardly an upstanding character. Vito had to know that Carlo was responsible for Sonny’s assassination, but he evidently couldn’t bring himself to retaliate against his daughter’s husband. Young Vito did murder Fanucci, and it wasn’t, technically, a kill-or-be-killed situation. But Fanucci had already callously impoverished and potentially starved Vito and his family by forcing Sr. Abbandando to replace Vito with Fanucci’s nephew; and the alternative was for Vito to pay off Fanucci after he risked life and liberty in the dress factory holdup. He returned to Sicily to whack Don Ciccio and his two henchmen. That was vengeance, not survival, but it was proportional to their crimes: they had killed his father, mother and brother, and would have killed him if he hadn’t escaped. (In the novel, Vito does order the killing of Maranzano [sic] and two Capone gunmen, but those were definitely in self-defense.)

I’m not trying to romanticize Vito, who was first, last and always a gangster, and undoubtedly ordered plenty of murders and other mayhem on his way up and even in his maturity, I’m just commenting on how he was portrayed: someone who seemed to have applied a concept of “justice” and “proportion” when engaging in violence.

Contrast Vito’s “we’re not murderers,” with Michael’s “I don’t want to kill everyone, Tom-—just my enemies.” Lotta enemies, then. It’s not easy to total the number of killings Michael ordered after he got his own hands bloody with McCluskey and Sollozzo. Some-—many--of them might have qualified under Vito’s code of “justice” and “proportion”; or kill or be killed, considering the business he’d chosen. Other killings were questionable and were the kind of pure vengeance that Vito had chided Bonasera over (were Roth and Pentangeli dangerous to Michael at that point? And, while Kleinzig and Gilday were enemies, did they deserve to die?). Some were bystanders, like Barzini’s chauffeur, the hooker with Tattaglia, and the passenger and elevator operator during the Great Massacre of 1955, as well as Senator Geary's bedmate, whose death was a means to an end: blackmailing Geary. In comparison with Vito, Michael seemed to have few scruples when dealing out death: he was a regular murder machine.

Nice analysis here, but I'm inclined to think that Michael is actually superior to Vito -- that is, a better Don -- in this respect, and there is little doubt that Puzo would agree. Speaking of Sonny in the novel, Puzo writes, "He showed a merciless ruthlessness, the lack of which had been Don Corleone's only fault as a conqueror" (p. 222).

Regardless, both their statements reflect their perspectives and are relative, kind of situational ethics.

Interesting comparision of Mike and Vito as dons. Would you agree that part of the way they conducted business was due to the time they were don. In other ways, as you stated, and I agree, Vito started out doing what he had to do for survivial, and Mike to acquire more wealth and power.

I think both of the factors you cited are right, Johnny. Their perspective on themselves is a product of both factors. Sicilian-born Vito still had that "grantor of justice" side that was valued in the old country, and useful in cementing support among his constituents in New York. Michael was a national, later global, figure. For him, as you say, the figure of merit was acquiring more wealth and power. But toward what end? Vito never lusted for "legitimacy" per se. Per the novel, he saw himself as doing a better job of running his world than did the political pezzanovanti. He was "legitimate" in the eyes of his fellow Sicilian immigrants, and respected and feared among his peers in the Mafia. Michael was obsessed with "legitimacy." A big part of the troubles he inflicted on himself and his family was his inability to accept what he really was--a problem Vito didn't have.

Continuing the comparision of Mike and Vito, how do you think they finally ended up in the minds of people that have watched the films, and at this point, other then new borns, I can't imagine not many people who havent seen the films at least once.

I think from the beginning the Brandon Vito was always liked and respected because of the way he was portrayed and time period of his life. He was way past the blood and guts part of his life, and he was shown as very devout family man, plus being able to outwit his enemies. I also believe this to be true with the DeNiro Vito. Even though he was shown to be a murderer, most could relate to a man taking care of his family and getting revenge on someone that was responsible for the murder of his mother, father and brother. Mike on the other hand might have been initially been liked by people in GFI and possibly even at the end, despite all the bloodshed he was responsible for. Continuing with GF III, I think initially he was liked, especially with the manner in which he handled business, especially his meeting with Geary. I think possibly as time went by, and he started killing for profit, many people might have started to turn away from him. Finally in GF III he appears to be sort of a diluted Vito, good family man, etc, and finally ended a sympathetic character that dies on a chair with no one around except some stray dog.

Well, who's superior is based on what is the measurement you choose.
On business terms Micheal was superior. Not only because he expanded the Corleone family business but his ruthlessness when it's necessary to kill.
And on family terms, Vito was superior. Micheal was foolish enough to make himself believe that what he did was for the good of the family.

One of the great things about the movie is the hypocricy of Vito and other charachters shown through out the godfather movies. The quote "we are not murderers" shows this.

Mike was a better don but Vito was a better father.

However it could be said that Vito was a bad Father who failed to protect his family. He didnt want the life he was living for his children. However all of his children joined the business mike, Sonny and Fredo. Vitos failure to keep his sons out of the business could be seen as a failure. He was a mafia don and this infleuenced his childrens decisions of what they wanted to becaome but even if his children didnt want the life, they were still sucked in to their fathers world (mike).

Vito was a better father then mike but he wasnt the ideal father.

What do you guys think?

Vito saw himself as a Don in the traditional sense...someone like Don Tomassino in Sicily, that is someone in the community who was a patron....a leader, who doled out "justice," and to whom people came for help, advice and "protection." As a businessman, he did well in the olive oil business, and as a mafia chief he dealt primarily with unions and gambling, one of which was arguably a "just" cause in those days, and the other was something he considered a harmless vice forbidden by the pezza novante. While he did and would employ murder as a tactic, I think he would only do so as a last resort. His murder of Fanucci was, in his mind, an act which liberated himself and his friends and his community of someone who took unfair advantage of his own people, and throughout his life he
developed many friendships and gained many loyalties.

Michael in turn was far more cold blooded, and used murder as a means to get whatever he wanted. He was a better business man, but at a terrible price. When his life ended he was a broken man, and an utter failure.

One of the more telling lines in the trilogy which demonstrates
Michael's failed life long attempt to fill his father's shoes was when he told Fredo, "Its not easy being a son."

Zaf-the-Don hits the nail on the head with his comment on hypocrisy.

TB is correct that Vito is portrayed as someone with a sense of proportion and justice. However, there are many indications that this presentation is erroneous. For instance, Vito was willing to kill a man for holding Johnny to the terms of a legal contract. Is that justice?

Surely, this is just one of many examples through the years of Vito's willingness to use violence to achieve his ends, regardless of proportionality.

Yes, Michael is more willing to kill. But that doesn't mean Vito isn't a liar and a hypocrite when he says "We're not murderers."

I think Mike was good father, but a bad husband, or at the very least Kay made him look like a bad husband. I would have thought she would have been repulsed at Mike and his family from the beginning, with what she saw and knew. I suspect she hung in there for "perks", but then her high moral standards got the best of her.

How good can a father be who drafts his children or intends to draft his children into criminal enterprise service?

Exactly what i mean

It appears to me that the only male child who Vito wanted to keep "out" of the business was Michael. He sent him off to college to try and provide a "legitimate" life for him. Other than Tom, it doesn't appear that Sonny nor Fredo had a formal education. Nor does it appear that Vito had any type of formal education at all. When Tom broke the news to a recovering (gunshot victim) Vito that it was Mike who had gunned down the Police Captain, Vito appeared to be very sad and resigned to the fact he had failed to protect Michael from the "business."

Welcome to the boards 45ACP, you're right.

He realized Michael would never become..."Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone..."

I dont think that was the issue because i'm sure Vito wanted a better life for all his children before they chose to follow his path. I'm sure as a father Vito failed as he couldnt put his sons on the right path, to a certain extent it was Vitos fault as he influenecd his sons greatly and is the major reasons why they chose the path they did. So as a father he failed.

Vito always favored Michael more than anyone. The scene in Pt II, right after Vito murdered Fanucci, when he came back to his family, he picked up Michael from his wife, not Fredo. He kept telling Michael he loved him very much . . . very much. That sent the signal to me that Michael was special to Vito and he had "special plans" for Michael. Even Tom admitted as much to Michael at the dinner table when he said that he and Vito had discussed Michael's future. College had been part of the plan, but Michel disappointed everyone by dropping out and joining the Marines.

I wasnt talking about who his special son was but that Vito choosing the path of crime must have influenced Fredos and Sonnys decision to choose a similar lifestyle (of crime) by this it was Vitos fault to a certain extent his children turned out the way they did, I'm sure as a father Vito didnt want the same lifestyle for his children. Even Mike his favourite son fell into the criminal lifestyle because of Vito. All this shows that Vito was well a bad influence on his kids which makes him a bad father.

Exactly. At the wedding Mike is telling Kay about Luca and Vito and Johnny Fontane and the band leader. Vito chose to bring up his children in that kind if environment. How in the world did he think they would turn out? Anytime you expose your children to bad things, there's a real good chance that they might adopt those behaviors.

He was always grooming Santino to take over the family business, and I think he felt an obligation to take care of Fredo who was...well....but he had other plans for Michael in the legitimate world, or so we are led to believe. Despite Michael's claim he would never be a man like his father, in the Saga deleted scne we see Vito asking Michael to come talk to him about working...what could he have had in mind?

I have yet to see anything in GF or Pt II that indicates Vito did not want Santino and Fredo to follow in his footsteps. I've already listed plenty of evidence he had "legitimate plans" for Michael (since he was a baby). What makes you believe Vito did not want (at least) Santino to follow in his footsteps and lifesyle? He always asked him (Sonny) to be present when he conducted business.

When Vito talked about legitimacy, he was talking about Michael pulling hte strings. To me that means "only as legitimate as you have to be." I think Vito saw legitimacy in quite a different light than you or I.

Agreed. He saw Senator or Governor Corleone as someone in the legitimate world who would be The Family's ultimate political contact.

I think, deep down inside, Vito knew Michael was the only son capable of becoming the Don. Time and time again he tried to groom Sonny, but Sonny was either distracted or disinterested (like when Sonny's looking out the window at the wedding instead of paying attention to Vito's Bonasera decision, or Sonny banging Ms. Mancini etc...)

Vito may have liked for Michael to become "Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone", but for his Empire to last beyond his lifetime, he knew Michael had to be the one to carry the torch, or "pull the strings".

I think i might be bringing the book into this thats why i believe he wanted a different life for all his children. But the book and the movie are different things. However in the scene when he talks to mike about he didnt have enough time in the garden to mike he also says "i knew sonny and fredo had to go through this but not you" or something like that he says it in a weak tone which doesnt just show the failure of bringing mike to a better way of life but also his other children sonny and Fredo.

However my ultimate argument was that as a father Vito wasnt a good one.

So basically, Vito was just an oily haired wap? ;>)

Yes to both. In the novel, Vito wanted Sonny to be a lawyer because "a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns." Not exactly a prescription for "legitimacy." And Sonny proved not to be college material.

As I've posted before: If Vito'd had his druthers, Vito wouldn't have spent his golden years basking in the civic virtue of Senator or Governor Michael Corleone. He would have used his son's public position to "legitimize" the Corleone interests by trying to legalize gambling (so that the Corleones' dominance of illegal gambling could be channeled into legal casinos); and to divert Vito's labor rackets into "political support" for Senator/Governor Corleone. Sonny would be in charge of a decreasingly important "olive oil business." Michael would be the important one.

No but he was a bad father.

That is spelled WOP.....With Out Passport.