The Godfather-One Big Depressing Analogy

Last night I had a Godfather party, and pulled in two new fans. It was very cool. We stayed up all night, eating spaghetti and watching the entire trilogy. Of course, I felt good, because I was showing off all my knowledge and answered every one of their questions (except one, but we'll get to that later...) in great detail. I felt like a regular Turnbull around them . One thing, I couldn't answer though. They asked me, what the significance was of the marionette on the logo was.

I looked it up on here, and now I have come up with my own theory. But, then I really started thinking about The Godfather and I think I came up with a totally different interpertation of it.

In all three movies, I can think of only one completely careless, happy, scene, and that is the wedding scene. The first scene of the first movie. And, I think we can all agree, that the most depressing scene would surely be the last scene of the third movie. In between, while, each movie has a somewhat, succesful ending, with some closure, altogether, life just gets worse for the Corleones.

I see the marionette as society, holding "the Godfather" (whom I see as Vito Corleone representing his family). You see, the font used is that of power and pride, though the marionette shows how, still, it is left under control, by other, more powerful people. You see, I see the entire trilogy as one big struggle for happiness. And what is happiness? For Vito, his happiness was just to make it by, and too build a loving family, but eventually to pull that family out of crime. For Sonny, that was to also have a strong family and to keep that family (genalogical and crime versions) just as strong. For Fredo, that was to be accepted as a true Corleone, to be respected by his peers and his family. For Connie, that was, overall, to find herslef, and to live life free from her family's bad points but full of her family's good points. And, for Michael, it was simply to be like his father-powerful, loved, and respected. I guess that last one could be debated, but its safe to say that none of this was acheived.

All together, the main goal of the Corloenes as a whole, was too find happiness. And, for the Corleones, what was happiness? It was, legitimacy. It was earning a living, and keeping eachother fed, but without violence and the burdens of the law. It was to be honest in the eys of society, to have the Corleone name be one like Kennedy or Rocefeller. However, this is never acheived, either. And why? Because Barzini is happy making his own decisions, despite Vito's concerns. Because Hyman Roth wants to keep everything the same. Because Don Altobello doesn't like change. Because Fanucci wants to keep his protection rackets intact. You can kind of say that the Corleones, and their allies, at least in their world, are the only ones not happy-the only ones who are seeking happiness. But these powerful people, Barzini, Roth, Altobello, and Fanucci all are mere fingers on the hand that keeps the Corleones just as they are-a powerful crime family.

I find the entire trilogy to be one big analogy for a party who spend their lives struggleing to gain virtue, but never actually receiveing it. It's a smple story with a complicated coating, and ultimately, with a sad ending. Its definately original, and I think its that, that keeps us all so captured. Because everyone can relate to seeking hapiness. And everyone can relate to failing at it.

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

Bravo! Outstanding interpretation of the epic.

Thank you, Tony Love.

As I thought more into it, I started to see something even deeper. The Corleones remind me a lot of a poor man in a facist country. This poor man tries his whole life to move on from poverty, but, because society likes it just the way it is, as much as he struggles, he never progresses.

I mean, look at Vito. We see him first as a powerful, loving, wise, lucky man, just as facism seems like a great idea for a government, when all it is, is an idea. But, if you really look into his character, he is a victim. His family all ended up dead before he turned 9. He moved to America, a strange land, as just a child, and found life even harder there. Life was so hard, that it eventually lead to him, a relatively peaceful man, resulting to murder. And I think, Vito must have been quite angry, quite emotional about Fanucci, for deciding on his death so quickly. He tried his best to raise his family to prosper, but he failed at that too. Sonny died so young, Michael ended up in the very career that Vito never wanted him to enter, Fredo, well, was Fredo, afterall, and Connie, up until only a little after Vito's death, lived a pretty miserable life with Carlo. Sure, Vito was happy with his family, but, its safe to say, that he must have been very depressed by all this, deep down inside.

Like the poor man in the facist country struggles for more money, Vito struggles for peace. In both situations higher authority, whether it be legal or otherwise, limit their happiness, as much as they struggle. Like the story of the poor man, this one is about a victim that never wins his fight.

Do you think, that maybe, this comparison was intentional of Puzo? Or am I just splitting hairs?

Your take on the answer is very interesting, but I think you're looking too deeply for a simple answer.

One must realize the logo was chosen for just one movie, even if used for all three. (It was never originally intended to film three movies).

The marionette logo was used to show Vito's power. He was the marionette. He was the one pulling the strings. He was the one orchestrating what others did. He was the one who wanted to do this (and he suceeded).

Remember the scene with Mike and Vito in the garden ("Senator Corleone.... Governor Corleone...."). Vito used the literal value of the logo to explain his life to Michael. He said, " Fredo was -- well -- But I never -- I never wanted this for you. I work my whole life, I don't apologize, to take care of my family. And I refused -- to be a fool -- dancing on the string, held by all those -- bigshots. I don't apologize -- that's my life -- but I thought that -- that when it was your time -- that -- that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator - Corleone. Governor - Corleone, or something".

The holding of the strings (the marionette) simply refers to who has control over others.

Moscarelli, I agree with SC on his interpretation of the logo. But you made a great observation about the underlying sadness in the enire trilogy. Especially GF2. You can contrast the endings of all the 3 movies. While a lot of people are impressed by the silent scream in GF3 or michael's lonely death scene, I can see the most sadness in Fredo's death scene. The corleone family is no longer the family that vito dreamt of. michael killing fredo... totally depressing. kay aborting her child and leaving michael... again depressing. The saddest scene in GF3 to me was when michael collapses in the kitchen and the only people around him(not just physically but also in term of loving) are Neri and Connie

That's what I always thought

Just to add to that: Genco on his deathbed asks Vito to "pull a few strings" to save him from death.

I suppose the broader message (from the trilogy as a whole) is that no man is completely free in his actions ... there is always someone at the top pulling his strings, whether it is a Mafia Don or the establishment pezzonovante.

I agree, SC.

I think that the Vito you see is more of the cinematic creation. If you read the book, he didn't kill Fanucci out of desperation or anger. He killed him because that was the first step in becoming the man he was destined to become - The Godfather. All his life, he was underestimated. He was thought to be weak and sick and stupid by many because he kept things inside. Yes, he had a tragic life, but he wanted that rise to power. He wanted to be the one who held the strings. The circumstances of his job loss, Fanucci, and meeting Clemenza helped to get him there. Realistically, Clemenza and Tessio are the ones with the criminal experience. Why does Vito become the one to talk to Fanucci? And remember the scene at Vito's house? How he tells Tessio and Clemenza that, if he gets Fanucci to take less money, they will owe him? He is a born leader, a natural force, and the quiet, peaceful man was the fake Vito.

That said, in the book, he dies saying how life is so beautiful. I don't believe that is a man who was unhappy with his destiny.

Yes, the logo is simple...as has been posted. It is a metaphor for Vito being the puppeteer, and not the one dancing on the strings. There is, however a long and sitll ongoing tradition in Sicily of dramatic puppet shows (there is one in GF III) so I think this was also a consideration in making that logo.

My Compari have pretty much expressed my assessment of Vito in this vein. But I would add that a great deal of Vito's motivation was to protect his family from the real and perceived threats that the world presents. He did see his entire family wiped out because of their vulnerability. In America he was willing to put the past behind him, but Fanucci disabusd him of that possibility. So, he made a decision that he and his family would never be vulnerable again. Now, Vito has foibles just like any of us. The allure of power et al did corrupt his values. Sure, he could be soft hearted, but as Michael expressed to Kay in the novel, Vito would come a callin' when it was time for those he had helped to help him.

As someone wrote above, Vito was as much a cinematic creation as true to life. So, we have to take that into account. His kids (like any kids) are kind of like their father, but they are not the father. They have their own motivations and goals, etc. and they pursue them in their own ways with their particular personal resources.

So, sadness. Yes, indeed. Michael's silent scream echoes back through the generations to Vito. Vito never wanted this for Michael; but he conceded that he had no such destiny planned for his other two sons. They were to be sacrificed to the avarice of the underworld. Connie was an accident of birth. That she was female was just the way it goes. He abandoned her to her abusive husband. Think about that.

Vito protected and provided well for his family; he was loving. Great. But there was a limit to his intelligence; ultimately, he couldn't see past his own needs.

I'm having a brain fart. Fanucci was the Don which Vito (played as DeNiro) whacked on the streets of Little Italy. Am I correct?

Yes: eating spaghetti all night is definitely Turnbull-like!
I agree with SC's analysis about the strings. And I agree with your point about the Corleones' unhappiness. In fact, for all the power they had, Vito was powerless to prevent his daughter from marrying a guy who he knew was a bum; his son from being murdered by the bum; and his most favored son from being sucked into the family business. The fact that most of this happened while Vito was incapacitated is a nice metaphor for powerlessness that might even call into question the string-pulling analogy.
Michael's even more pathetic because he's even more frustrated: Constantly seeking "legitimacy" and constantly being exposed for the criminal he is. How much power and happiness does a guy have when, near the end of his life, he wails, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"? As I've said many times, Michael became the biggest criminal in the world, but he spent his life winning battles and losing wars. That's why I think the three-word summary of the Trilogy is: Crime Doesn't Pay.

Yes, the guy who stands up in the audience during the italian play that Vito and Genco watch together.

Very interesting thoughts. I especially liked the example of the wedding at the beginning of the film being the only genuinely happy scene in the entire trilogy. It's true.

Of course there are other "happy" scenes in the movies, but they always have in them the lingering effects of sadness, loss and guilt.

Think about it -- Michael and Kay's wedding doesn't even get a frame of film!

Good thread. I'm glad to see that some serious discussion has taken over the boards again.

The marionette motif makes at least three appearances in the films:

In GF II Fanucci watches a street performer putting on a marionette show ("Oh.....this is too violent for me")

Also in II, there's a scene where Michael, Kay, and Anothony are in their car, and Anthony is playing with a marionette; a little bird I think it was. You have to watch closely, though, 'cause it's easy to miss.

And in III, there's a scene in Corleone, Sicily, where Michael and Kay also watch a street performer doing a marionette show.

Actually, PL, the scene with Kay and Michael and little Anthony is in GF1. It's the scene where Kay asks Michael to be godfather to Connie's son. Anthony is in the car with them and he's playing with a toy bird on a stick.

As someone (DT?) said, there is an old Sicilian tradition, the Puppet theatre, a popular form of art based on puppets moved by strings (the so called "pupi", while the one behind the scenes who pulls the strings is the "puparo"), which has been declining in the last decades due to major commercial forms or expressions like cinema and television, but still remains a best attraction for tourists and a powerful symbol in the Sicilian tradition. It is obvious that the logo got this symbolic meaning.

I completely agree with SC's interpretation. Vito is the puppeteer working the string of everyone around him.

Moscarelli - with all due respect, I think you are completely wrong about Vito being a victim, after a point.

A victim as a child? Yes. Even up to the point where he loses his job in the grocery store, I can buy the victim routine. But he stopped being a victim the moment he shot Fannuci, or even when him, Tessio, and Clemenza had their dinner discussion of what to do.

After his first murder, he ceased being a victim. Everything was his own doing, and (realizing we're dealing with fiction here) you can't possibly consider him a victim.

As with any criminal, he justified all of his acts (taking care of family, protecting them, etc), but he wasn't a victim.

I think part of the larger "plot" with the marionette is that even when you hold the strings, you eventually realize that there's another marionette behind you, pulling your strings even if you have "power" of your own. Look at Mike: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in".

It is not so much that he is a victim, nor is it so much that he is a criminal, but rather that he is a force unto himself...."no different than any powerful man....But Michael(WHINE) Senators and Congressmen don't have men killed!...."Whose being naive, Kay?"

I think Puzo's whole point was to show some degree of moral relativism here.

I agree. At first Vito was a puppet, on a string, his life being controlled by others. And I think that he realized this when Fannuci shakes down Genco's father and causes Vito to lose his job by forcing Mr. Abbandando to hire his ( Fannuci's ) nephew. At that point I believe that Vito said to himslef No More! I no longer will be a puppet, hanging on a string, having my life and my destiny controlled by others. I shall be the one to control my own destiny. I will be the one PULLING the strings and control the lives of others instead.

Don Cardi

DC, I humbly disagree. I think that turning point came for Vito a bit later. I think he was even willing to lose his job and not be turned. However, when Fredo is sick and he feels so helpless, and Clemenza offers him the hijacking job, and then Fanucci insists that they pay tribute, I think THAT is his turning point. Remember, in the book, he is shocked that Tessio and Clemenza are willing to turn over a share of the money so easily. He is the only one smart enough to realize that Fanucci is a blowhard with no real power or influence, and can be eliminated quite easily.

Let's not forget, Mario Puzo also mentions that Vito's becomes a much more intelligent man and breaksdown Fanucci's "flaws", if you know what I mean

With ALL due RESPECT SB, that's where we differ on this interpretation. I've always felt that the loss of his job combined with the shakedown of Abbandando lit the fire in Vito's and killed by the Pezzanovante of the old world. And he was not going to let that happen to his family in the new world. It was then that he started to realize no one ever stood up to this Fanucci and the wheels in his head began to turn.

But this is what makes The Godfather Trilogy and these boards so great! We all love the same movie, watch the same movie and yet we all see it differently!


Don Cardi

Respect?! Hah!!

But if you remember, Vito is still such a principled man that he won't even take the free food from Mr. A. He is still a very proud and principled man. I don't think he has yet reached the point where he would be a criminal. I think it is only down the road, where he reaches that turning point.

Yes, Vito is principled within his limits. But, he does eventually accept food from Genco. But, the novel also states that he developed a hatred for Fanucci. That's understandable. I think he held out for his principles as long as he could. Eventually, he abandoned them as the only way to fully protect his famly. Once that protection was reasonable achieved - well, absolute power corrupts absoutely!