Why "Godfather"?

This may sound naive, but why do they call Vito "Godfather"?
He's definitely Johnny's Godfather, perhaps Godfather of Nazorine's daughter. Tessio and Clemenza also call him Godfather.
But even Moe Greene calls him Godfather.
Why?
He insists being called Godfather by Bonasera, obviously for reasons of submission.

Tom is pointing out that the godson/godfather realtionship is very religious, sacred, close.
But we must believe that it's more kind of a title, derived from the patronage system in Sicily.

Did Puzo invent this for the book or has this term been used before?

No, the term is just as Tom explained it to Woltz. While normally a religious affiliation, there were many who came to love and respect Vito for his help (like Nazorine the baker), so they called him "Godfather" for those reasons.

For which reasons?

It's a criminal perversion of what should be a sacred/familial relationship but it's also a recognition of the fact that Vito Corleone did help a lot of people. This was obviously mostly out of self-interest and he got something out of the deal but he was (as depicted in the book and movie) a sort of patriarch for not only his criminal followers but to a lesser extent to the larger community.

You need protection from shakedown artists? Talk to Vito.
You want advice on whether you should open up a new grocery store? Talk to Vito.
You just arrived from overseas and need employment? Talk to Vito.
You need someone to mediate a political dispute? Talk to Vito.
You can't decide who to vote for? Talk to Vito.
You need for the city/state licensing board to stop bothering your business? Talk to Vito.
You want to have Vito as a friend? Ask him to be godfather to your children.

All this and more meant that (as described in book and movie) that Vito was the most powerful Mafia leader in the US with political connections that were deep and wide.

So being called -Godfather/Padrone/Padrino etc.. would have been a recognition of this status by his friends and enemies, by people in his line of work and people that were completely law-abiding, that Vito Corleone stood at the very top of a huge system of patronage and corruption that could work for you, if you were his friend.

Fuck you. Pay me.

EXACTLY...

The scene with Bonasera shows a certain conceit on Vito's part. Bonasera wasn't ready to accept the type of "godfather" relationship that his other petitioners had with him. Bonasera wanted to treat him as a hired gun. Obviously Vito wasn't going to let Bonasera use him that way. But, IMO, he reinforced his terms by demanding that Bonasera call him "godfather" ("you don't even think to call me Godfather...").

I agree TB with your perspective on Bonasera. However, I think it reveals alot about Vito. The main thing it reveals is that Vito was willing to to do anything necessary (even humiliating a longtime friend) to achieve whatever objective he had in mind (murder, of coure). Alot of Board members give Vito a pass, but I don't. He was a lowlife despite outward appearances.

So I guess you're more a fan of Michael then, or even Vincent.

I agree ollie.

And I think (not making excuses, just an observation)that many give Vito a pass because of the way the writers cleverly portray Vito compared to the others.

We see Vito commit cold blooded murder when he gets revenge on Don Ciccio and co. And many accept and forgive his act of murder because, after all, Don Ciccio wiped out his whole family. But bottom line is that murder is murder. Sin is sin.

How many hard working families did Vito's "businesses" and actions destroy? We are never shown that! Instead we are shown a quiet, soft spoken man who rose from the streets helping poor widows, providing services and "justice" to those who were unfairly treated by the laws of the land.

Many are blinded by the fact that Vito was a cold blooded murderer, a leach, because they are instead shown a man who refuses to get into drugs, scolds his son for fooling around with another woman because a man who doesn't spend time with his family could never be a real man! Hey, this guy has morals! Won't get into the drug business or cheat on his wife, but at the same time he'll order the murder of another human being or destroy a hard working man's life and family with just the wave of his hand.

I know it is just a movie, but I must agree olivant. He is a lowlife criminal just like the rest of them.

Vito is what you might call Affably Evil which is why the films work so well.

Let's fact it, Vito was romanticized. This is a man who ordered the beheading of an extremely valuable race horse because he didn't get his way. And, yet, who wasn't a little bit happy that Woltz was bested?? Not only is Vito portrayed as this kindly man doing favors for his friends, but his enemies were always arrogant buffoons (Woltz, Tattaglia, Fanucci).

That is why the movies work with The Corelones as protaganists, conceptually awkward as it is. Not because the Corleones are noblemen, but because they are more noble than their enemies. Is a mouse smart? No. Is a mouse smarter than a snail? Yes. Spend two hours watching mice outsmart snails and you come away with the impression that mice are smart.

So, who invented the term "Godfather" for this special kind of relationship?

i agree even though Vito was tame compared to other dons he was still a guy who would kill in order to make money or get something he wanted. Mike was the same way but he was even worse because he got the Macbeth syndrome all that power fucked up his mind and he became a psychopath. But all these guys are romanticized on the outside but on the inside are dark

I know little of the real life Mafia, but I think Carlo Gambino was known as The Godfather.

interesting that you use the killing a horse as an example....thought you'd use the bandleader story as an unambiguous example of what Vito was about, but I guess you're an animal lover.



===================

About Bonsera, I think Vito was more upset that the funeral director pledged allegiance to the "system" rather than to Vito.
Vito thought, and was right to an extent, that the pezzo.s who ran the system were no different, and in fact hid behind the veneer of respectability , than the killers, thieves, extortionists who were the pezzos of HIS world.

One of the examples he uses is the "legit" pezzos exploiting the proletariat by sending THEIR children off to war to protect the interests of the pezzos. Several references to the benefits of pledging allegiance to Vito system and the pride he took in being able to employ all of his people during turbulent economic times in America when honest men(who pledged allegiance to the legit system had to take charity)

The Bonsera case....proletariat in the legal system against elite...Vito KNEW that the funeral director would be humiliated.

Lilo, I think that Vito was not upset, but meant to humiliate Bonasera because Vito took pleasure in doing so. Michael inherited some of that characteristic. Michael's getting Carlo to admit to his guilt was a form of what Vito made Bonasera do - call him Godfather.

Not really, but the band leader was also trying to take advantage of Johnny's fame and get rich while not paying Johnny very much. Plus, he was a human being, who could make his own decisions. Can't say the same for the horse.

You should have kept your mouth shut, they'd have thought you was a horse and let you out.


...ooops...sorry.....wrong movie.

Vito's killing of Don Ciccio was no more cold blooded than the government strapping someone to a chair and injecting a deadly substance into their arm. The latter only isn't "murder" because it's legal. And the prosecutors, judges, and juries who sentence people to death aren't people who were personally affected by the crime like Vito was by what Don Ciccio did. If I were Vito I'd have done the same thing.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make in how the director and writer are cleverly able to make some in the movie look like outright cold blooded murderers and then make Vito look justified in his acts of murder, when in truth, they are all guilty of committing cold blooded murder.

And where, in my post did I ever justify death sentences by the government or any of the other pezzanovante? Besides,what in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with it because, in my experience, people who do a certain behavior who aren't pezzonovante are often condemned for it while those who are (prosecutors, governments, presidents. etc.) and do something similar are often not condemned. I don't believe moral judgments should be made based on whether someone is in a position of authority or not.

Vito, your point is taken. And I am not in total disagreement with some of the things that you say and point out.

But I am speaking within the directing and writing of THE MOVIE itself and how that writers are able to portray characters that are ALL gangsters and murderers....but in different ways so that the popular ones, the ones that the writers and directors want us to root for, are made to be perceived in a different way than the unpopular ones. That's all. It was not meant to be a political debate of any kind.

Just a mere observation about the writing of the characters in THE MOVIE, that's all.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. There is ZERO equivalency between Vito's murders of Don Ciccio and his henchmen and the execution of a convicted murderer by the government.

In the latter situation, our society has laws - created by elected representatives of the populace - designed to ensure the greatest possible good for the most possible people. There is a process in place, with disinterested parties making dispassionate decisions, and an appeals process designed to ensure fairness. I understand that, in practice, there are many problems with the system, but that's the theory behind it. You imply that executions should be carried out by individual members of the pezzenovante openly and with the support of society, despite the fact that this would have none of the admittedly inadequate safeguards of the current system.

Vito's murders in Sicily are pure vengeance. There is no benefit to society on any level. Even if there were, allowing individuals to make those choices with no checks or balances (other than others' individual powers) wil only serve to rend the fabric of society, whereas the legal system (in theory), solidifies it.

Incidentally, I am a strong opponent of capital punishment. But there's a huge difference between acts carried out within a well-established legal framework and vigilante actions. It's way too facile to say one is OK because it's "legal."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I completely disagree with what you've said here. Yes, the killing of Don Ciccio was vengeance, but it was very arguably justified vengeance. How would you have liked having your entire family be murdered? And it's very hard to argue that capital punishment isn't just as vengeful, or that "society" derives any more benefit from the government executing people than it did (or would have, given that the Godfather movies weren't real life) from Vito killing Ciccio. As the example of Charles Manson shows, it is perfectly possible to remove a threat to society by keeping that person in prison for the rest of their life. Furthermore, it's difficult to sustain your argument that there's zero equivalency when law enforcement officials themselves state that one of the aims of the criminal justice system is "to punish" (this is what a professor of mine, who himself was a prosecutor and is now a judge, said in an introductory paralegal course)--not simply to protect society. I guess the difference between "punishment" and "vengeance" is similar to that between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist"--in either case, if one approves of the action, the first word is used to describe it, while if one doesn't, the second is used.

VitoC, that's what we call the process of civilisation. People agree about the process of law and refrain from their ancient right of vengeance.
And maybe that's exactly the reason why we can see some justification in some of Vito Corleone's crimes. When he comes to New York, there's no reason for him to rely on law, police or judges. To him the rules of Little Italy were the same rules as as in Sicily: The strongest survive. He didn't intend to become a robber and a murderer. But when the law seems to be made for the rich only, what else can you do?
That's what we learn from the novel, and that's in a way what Vito says to Bonasera in the first scene: "There were courts of law. You didn't need a friend like me."
In the beginning of the 20th century the legal system was corrupt. Things changed a little in the 40s: "my father's way of doing things is over."

Fair enough.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that one is punishment and another is not. The distinction I am drawing is between an act carried out by an individual based on his own notions of justice compared to one carried out by within a system developed over centuries with the support of society.

I understand why Vito killed those men. I also understand why people support captal punishment. I approve of neither, but that doesn't mean they're morally equivalent. That lets Vito and the rest of the Mafia off far too easily.

I understand your reasoning, but I'm just not convinced that something of this sort done on the initiative of an individual is automatically morally worse than if it's done within a larger social system. After all, slavery was also "a system developed over centuries with the support of society."

And as I said before, if you believe capital punishment and a vigilante killing like what Vito did are both wrong, you could argue that the former is actually morally worse , not better, since it was done by people who weren't influenced by the emotional trauma of the crime, like the individual avenging his/her family was.

The device that makes Vito seem sympathetic is repeated in II with Fredo. Even though Fredo betrayed his brother simply because he was "passed over" and more likely than not did know
it was going to be a hit on Michael, at the end we feel saddened that Fredo was killed, and we dislike Michael for taking vengence.

There is a big difference. fredo was never a killer. He certainly didn't want anything to happen to his brother. Vito was not a violent mobster but he still would use violence to get wahat he wanted. Mike just became a psycho when he became don

DT, I'm not sure I understand your analogy. But, stated simply, Vito is a sympathetic figure despite the fact that he is a murderer because he is juxtaposed against other bad guys (whose sympathetic qualities we never get to see). In other words, we see Vito helping people (Nazorine), we see him being a father (the wedding), and we see him just trying to get along ("your business is a little dangerous")and being picked on by those bad guys ("I pulled them guys off.").

That's a matter of opinion. There are many threads here on Fredo's guilt/innocence. It's probably the single most debated topic on these boards.

Bonasera totally disrespected the Don by asking him to kill for money. Vito was not a thug, or as he put it, "We're not murderers." Of course, that doesn't mean that they wont do murder, but that was done out of what they saw as necessity, and was therefore not seen as murder by them. More as an extension of self-defense.

By "not thinking to call him Godfather" he was displaying his own arrogance. Vito did not "force" him to say it, but called him on his disrespect. It's like asking your new girlfriend's father for a favor, and not thinking to show him the respect of calling him Mister.

But because Vito was a businessman, who collected friendships, he was willing to forgo the signs of disrespect, if Bonasera relented, giving him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he was simply ignorant, and not intentionally disrespectful. Which actually may have been the case.

For the un-initiated, it is actually quite easy to offend these "men of honor" even today, without realizing it. Either by making assumptions based on rumors or crap you see in the movies, or even in other ways that you just didn't even think of because you are not in that class of people. Another example might be something like giving a thumbs up sign to someone in Thailand, you would actually be telling them eff you.

I'd say the use violence to get what you want is a simple but good definition of being a mobster.

[quote Kuklinski] Vito was not a thug, or as he put it, "We're not murderers." Of course, that doesn't mean that they wont do murder, but that was done out of what they saw as necessity, and was therefore not seen as murder by them. More as an extension of self-defense.[/quote]
They lied to themselves all the time. Of course, they were murderers. They needed this whole honor-myth (as well as the "It's only business"-talk) to disguise and justify their crimes.

Wow! That's one for the psychiatric journals.

Ok smartass. What I meant was he was mostly low key. he wasn't a Gotti type of mobster who would yell and scream. I not defending him at all. I'm talking about his personality

Ok, let's not start with the name calling or the negative categorizations. Feel free to debate and disagree, but please try to do so without getting personal.

Hey thats no probelm as long as nobody starts with me. Anyway geting back to the discussion I think Vito had limits to what he would do but still he felt he was above everyone

Yes and no. This is the dilemma which haunted Michael all of his life. Was he really doing murder, or was he protecting his family? Is it really murder to kill someone who is trying to kill you or your family?

I think that the murder of is brother is really the only one he felt was a mistake.

Do you define murder morally or per statute? By statute, yes, it is murder to kill someone who is trying to kill you unless the attempt to kill you is imminent. Many states, in fact, maintain the stautory requirement that one tried to flee an attacker before using lethal force. Morally, it may be different, but to bring morality into it regarding a mafioso is a stretch. As has been discussed many times on this Board, Mike eschewed any semblance of morality (or law) by leading the life he did and choosing not to leave it behind.

I dont think Michael was an immoral person. He was trying to protect his family. Which is what drew him into the life in the first place. He hated "the life."

Here's a true story, from Poughkeepsie NY that went down this past year. A gunman opened fire on and killed another man in the parking lot of the Rip Van Winkle housing building. Cold blooded murder? Hardly. Looking back, there was a history between the two. In fact, they had each already been sent to state prison for shooting one another in earlier confrontations. It was inevitable that one day one would kill the other. So the shooting could be seen as sort of pre-emptive self-defense.

"This is chess, it ain't checkers!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gafALL-R1nI

Here a link for a brief on the shooting...

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/08/27/blotter/doc4c772bb58e669630871481.txt

No one with any sense of self respect would try to run away from an attacker just to avoid killing them--I don't care what the law says. Where is the honor in that? If the attacker didn't want to be killed, they shouldn't have attacked in the first place!

Regarding Michael, I disagree that he (or Vito for that matter) were immoral or evil people. And even if one totally abhors everything about organized crime, one should remember that if Michael hadn't become the new godfather, someone else would have. It's not as if by choosing to be legitimate he would have put an end to the Corleone crime family. The family and its activities would have gone on--just under someone else, perhaps Clemenza or Pentangeli.

Amen.

Well in the US it depends on the state and the circumstances. Some states have castle law doctrines such that if someone attacks you in your home or car you are under no requirement to retreat. I generally agree with those laws.

On the other hand we don't allow settling of beefs. If there is someone trying to kill me the legal thing to do is to call the police and have them arrest the assailant. Self-defense (in Michigan anyway) is usually only allowed in imminent defense of life. I am not allowed to run after a robber or assailant and shoot them down and then claim self-defense. I am not allowed to shoot someone on the street because we had issues going back years. I can not shoot someone because of what they might do. That's logic for the non-criminal.

Criminal logic is of course quite different and can be very tempting/intoxicating when depicted fictionally on screen or in print but in real life we should remember that such an expanded claim of self-defense (pre-emption) could cause a lot more murders.

In prison if someone blows a kiss at me, stares at me too long, cuts in line for the phone or takes food from my plate it is entirely rational that I would then assault or attempt to kill them. To not do so would be to invite further abuse, rape or death. That would indeed be self-defense. But in "real life" that logic makes no sense and is totally destructive of any sort of society.

Michael initially did the wrong thing for the right reasons (or maybe the right thing for the wrong reasons) but whatever his good intentions may have been he changed from a straight laced college grad to a man who murdered his own brother, oversaw the degradation of hundreds of thousands via narcotics and prostitution and killed other men to take their goods for himself. This all may have been justified under the rules he was operating under but that doesn't make it "good" nor does it mean that he never had choices.

Putting ALL else aside, this man ORDERED THE MURDER of his own brother!!!





On this you are correct. He made a conscientious choice to protect his family fully knowing that he would be a part of "the life" by making the choice that he made.




Did he really hate the life? I'm not so sure about that. Michael was an ego maniac. Heck even before he jumped into the life he sat there and basically bragged to Kay about how powerful his father and his family was. I always felt that the "That's my family Kay, it's not me" line was a crock of shit. Michael was also a control freak. For the most part Micheal loved the power and the perks that went along with the life. The power that went along with being the boss of bosses, the big Don, etc. excited Michael.

He only did so after he thought (probably correctly) that that brother knowingly conspired to kill HIM!! To not mention that fact is grossly unfair. It's like saying "Harry Truman was a mass murderer because he ordered the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as though this occurred in a vacuum, without any mention of the larger context in which it took place.

VitoC, I just love your analogies!


1)Again, this topic is not one that should morph into a political debate for this thread. Let's save those political debates for the General thread.

2) The debate as to if Fredo knowingly conspired to set up his brother to be killed is one that has been debated for years on these boards. Personally I do NOT think that Fredo INTENTIONALLY or KNOWINGLY conspired with Ola and Roth to have his brother Michael killed.

3)Please don't sit here and tell us that Michael was not an immoral person. There are several definitions of the word immoral and ALL describe and define what Michael Corleone became.

a)Tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption.
b)unscrupulous OR unethical
c)deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
d)dishonest

Just like his father and the whole Mafiosi genre, Michael eschewed every semblance of civilized behavior by using murder, mayhem, extortion, racketeering, and intimidation with alacrity to achieve his personal objectives. To him, noone else counted if it achieved his end and his end did not extend beyond his own aggrandizement.

Michael certainly felt remorseful about ordering Fredo's death, and I think his emotion while confessing to Cardinal Lamberto was genuine. But I don't think he belived that killing Fredo was a mistake. I think the depth of resentment Fredo showed in the boathouse scene convinced Michael that he would have been a danger to Michael and his family all of his life.

To me, the moral issue comes down to the life that Michael chose. He constantly put himself in the position of having to use violence to get his way, or to get himself and his family out of the way of violence aimed at them because of his actions. A scene from the beginning of III puts it into good perspective: Michael says, "I spent my life protecting my family from the horrors of this world." And Kay replies, "But you became my horror."

TB, that is it exactly. He continually made the choice to stay in that life until it was too late.

I stand by what I said, Don Cardi. If you reject it, that's up to you. But don't give me this condescension--the whole purpose of this board is for people to exchange their opinions. This is not a matter of factual correctness. I'm not saying the Holocaust never happened or that the earth is flat. I'm giving a value judgment about someone. Frankly, I don't care about what some dictionary has to say about what constitutes "immoral." One of the definitions you provide is purely subjective on its face--"deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong"? Really? Up until the last few decades a white person who dated/married an African-American was "immoral" by that standard. Furthermore, one could view a person as doing a number of things that are immoral, even seriously so, but not label the person as immoral on the whole. This could be true for any number of reasons--including believing that the immoral actions are partially mitigated by context, and/or believing that other aspects of the person's behavior are good and praiseworthy.

Lyndon Johnson's political career included, among other shady things, blatant election fraud in Texas. But I don't consider Johnson an immoral person either, because 1) the Texas political culture was such that one had to be willing to do things like that to survive at that time, and 2) Johnson had numerous redeeming features, particularly his support of civil rights, that I believe outweighed his dark side.

And I don't see anything inappropriate about my Michael/Truman analogy. If the shoe fits... I remember Turnbull, in a different context, making an analogy between the two men.

I don't remember that, Vito. If you find it, please post it.

Part of Philosophy 101 is "ethical relativism." By that standard, Michael was probably no worse than any other Mafia Don, and LBJ was no worse than any other vote-stealing politician. Michael made that exact point in GF when he wooed Kay in New Hampshire: "My father is just like any other man with responsibilities for people...Governors and Senators don't have people killed? Now who's being naive, Kay?" But, IMO, we have to step back and ask, toward what end? A killer's still a killer, and a crooked politician's still a crooked politician. Someone who justifies moral lapses to advance his cause is likely to keep on doing just that, with even graver results down the line.

Amen TB. And the graver results that accrued to Michael's moral lapses? The murder of his daughter.

I think, Michael was at time really apart from his family. He disliked the way, his father handled things. He probably hated Luca. He wanted a modern life, have a modern wife. He didn't like Johnny Fontane.
Only when is father is shot, he realizes that he's the only one who has the guts, the heart, the brain & the talent to handle these things.

Well lets be fair the reason Mike became a good boss was because of Vito. Vito was the one who tole him about a traitor otherwise he would of been killed. Also Mike could have normal life but I agree with the other post he was a control freak and the power turned him into a evil psychopath

I have not spoken to you in a condescending way by any means. Not my intention at all. Yes, the whole purpose of this board is for people to exchange opinions, interpretations and ideas. No doubt about it. And there are appropriate threads that have been set up for all of us to do so with those exchanges and debates being posted according to topic that the thread was specifically created for. This is a thread created for discussions and debates regarding the Godfather Trilogy Movies. While I understand that you were trying to make analogies between fictional characters and real life, you need to understand that all I was trying to prevent was having this debate about the movie and it's characters turn into an all out real life political debate. That's all.







....But by the post that you made above it is quite obvious that you were not able to realize that all I was doing was trying to prevent this from turning into a real life political debate.



Can you please find that post? I, like TB, would love to see it!

Fredo: “Condescended to me. You're one of the longest tenured Board members and you're condescending to me. Did you ever think about that -- did you ever once think about that?”

Michael: “That's the way the Board works. “

Fredo: “It ain't the way I work! I'm smart -- not like everyone says -- not dumb, smart and I don't want to be condescended to. “

I was curious about this, too. I think this is the reference below (the linked post and some following it):


CLICK HERE

You're absolutely right, SC. This is what I was referring to. Thanks for posting it.

I wasn't trying to open a political debate either concerning Truman and/or LBJ. I was just using those examples to help illustrate my thought process. I don't think the valid desire to avoid political debates on this forum should mean that members have to avoid any references to political figures in their comments.

Vito, we understand by your analogies that you feel that Michael may have been just in the acts that he committed, and that Michael himself probably felt that he could justify his actions. Your reasoning is not in question based on the analogies that you keep providing.

But tell me something ; did Michael ever deliberately violate accepted principles of right and wrong? Was Michael honest or dishonest? Did he use unethical practices to get what he wanted? Did he deal with corrupt people of authority and / or partake in corrupt practices with them to get what he felt that he needed?

Thanks, SC! And thanks, Vito, for remembering it.

Michael was a Mafia don. Obviously, organized crime includes activities that are severely morally questionable at best--for example, union racketeering, forcing shopowners to pay protection money, etc. (I am less convinced when people talk about lives being ruined by gambling and prostitution, it seems to me that the people who provide these services are not necessarily any more responsible for destroying the lives of those who partake of them than liquor store owners are responsible for lives being destroyed by alcoholism). But there are reasons why me and many others had a problem with Michael being labeled a villain on the AFI list of movie villains. Even if one considers organized crime itself immoral, most of Michael's actions in the movies seem justified given the context he is operating in. One could argue that killing other gangsters is not something immoral on its face, given that the people you're killing, such as Moe Greene, Barzini, or Hyman Roth, have themselves chosen to live by the same code of behavior you are. There are exceptions--Michael may well have been able to avoid submitting to Geary's humiliating treatment without killing that prostitute (although Michael himself may not have ordered this). But still, giving the context he is operating in, Michael appears to be someone who, while involved in numerous immoral things, does not seem to be a person one can simply label "immoral" and leave it at that.

I think me and others are also hesistant to label Michael immoral or a villain because of why he came to be a Mafia don in the first place. While he certainly may have gotten greedy and consumed with power, he appears to have come to be a Mafia leader at least partially out of a sense of responsiblity to his family, to take up the mantle when his father was sick and died. There is also the issue of admiration, although this is more an issue when assessing Vito than Michael. It's difficult not to admire how Vito came to the U.S. from nothing, under horrible circumstances, and became someone hugely successful and powerful, creating a dynasty of sorts for his family, even if that ascent involved shady practices. There is something very noble and admirable about creating one's own destiny (as Vito put it, refusing "to be a fool dancing on the strings held by all of those big shots"), even if doing so involves means that aren't so noble. I think this is perhaps the most important factor in being reluctant to consider either Vito or Michael a villain in the sense that one would consider, say, Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy or Hitler to be one.

And I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if you're simply going to condemn Michael based on the questions you asked about him and leave it at that, then you have to do the same with many famous pezzanovante as well. I won't name names this time, but all the questions you posed about Michael could also be answered in the affirmative regarding numerous famous politicians, including many that are highly regarded (at least on the whole) by the public and historians. One might argue that there's a difference in that, unlike organized crime, politics isn't inherently about any immoral activities, but nevertheless, the comparison is valid in that it shows how someone can meet all of your criteria for being an "immoral person" and still not be seen as such by many people.

I've stayed out of this, Vito, but I'd just like to point out one thing.

You are from a very small town in Pennsylvania, where a guy like Don Cardi is from Brooklyn and has known many wiseguys throughout his lifetime. Same goes for me, being Italian-American and having grown up up in the Belmont section of the Bronx. I know these assholes all my life, and I'm almost 52 years old. Chances are, you never met with or had dealings with any mob types. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just assuming that a non-Italian composer from rural Pennsylvania never had cause to meet with any of these guys. If that's the case, lucky you. I was a union delegate and then a business agent with the Teamsters in Queens for over twenty years, just so you don't think I'm one of these Internet pseudo mob "experts."

Do you think you might think differently about these guys if you had grown up around them and/or maybe lost a loved one to either mob violence or a penal institution?

I enjoy your posts very much, so I'm not trying to provoke an argument. I'm just asking.

Your point is well taken, PB. It's true, I haven't had dealings with anyone from the mob. But I think I should point out that the subject of my posts above was Michael and Vito. I wasn't talking about anyone from real life. I hope no one concludes that I consider the Mafia as a whole to be some wonderfully noble institution. I agree that the Godfather movies certainly do romanticize organized crime (or at least don't show all of it). I certainly wouldn't have a problem with, say, Jimmy or Tommy in Goodfellas, or Ralphie or Phil Leotardo from the Sopranos, being labeled immoral or an asshole.

Not to "pile on" or try to equate to what Pizzaboy has experienced but I have a lot of family in Chicago/Berwyn/Cicero. A couple of my cousins wanted to open a LEGITIMATE bar/restaurant/night club thing back in the 70's only to be met with a TON of headaches. First of all, we are Italian so having a vowel at the end of the last name came with an automatic stigma. Long story short, they had to make some "concessions" to "people" just to open the doors and they lost their asses in the process. Eventually, they got out from "under" and had to leave Illinois altogether. One of my cousins actually had to sneak back into Chicago unannounced just to be able to attend his father's funeral. He came for 2 hours and flew out that afternoon under the radar. These "men of honor" or "wiseguys" or whatever you want to call them are scum. ANYTHING for a buck - including ruining someone's life and/or taking it.

Then we are agreed. The Godfather movies certainly do romanticize organized crime as Vito assents and real life mobsters are much worse than anyone shown as protagonists in the films as PB and DC would likely concur. And there will be the peace on the board...

Absolutely.

But I must have strict assurance from VitoC -- as time goes by and his position becomes stronger, will he attempt any individual vendetta?




Actually, Don Cardi should have said this, but nevermind.

Look, Sonny. We are all reasonable people here. We don't have to give each other assurances as if we were pre-teens. After all....this isn't Myspace.

Lilo, When I meet with the VitoC's people, should I insist that all his analogies are legitimate analogies?

You talk about vengeance. Is vengeance going to "friend" you on Facebook? Or vote a "like this" for me or Pizzaboy? If anyone else on this forum is "unfriended", I'm going to start blaming some of the posters in this thread...

Mention it Don Cardi, don't insist.

And that I don't forgive. But, that aside, let me say that I swear on the souls of my fellow Board members that I will not be the one to use false analogies.

I knew it.... it was pizzaboy all along.

He's small potatoes.

Last time I stick up for you .

And what is the interest for Mark's Family?

Will you take care of Mark outta your share?

My compliments.

Pizzaboy came to my home and he asked my permission to get rid of Cardi. When I refused he tried to have me killed. He was stupid, I was lucky. I'll visit him son. The important thing is that nothing interferes with our plans for the future. Yours and mine.

Nothing is more important.

Settle these troubles with the pizzaboy / Mark brothers.

If I kill one, I kill them all.

Pizzaboy, do you know how they will come after you?

Mark, can you arrange security for pizzaboy, on your turf, where he'll be safe?

As long as we don't take separate cars - that will screw up all my arrangements.

PB, I never wanted this for you.

...Senator Pizzaboy, Governor Pizzaboy...another Pizzanovante!

If the two of you arrive in separate cars it will be the greatest act since Moses parted the Red Sea.

Why am I out?

Because there is no room for you in Mark & pizzaboys car!

Tell the members on this board it was only business, I always liked them.

"Get Sonny Black a drink... but don't insult our intelligence by telling us it was only business. Admit what you did was personal...come on, do you think we would make The Netherlands unrepresented on this forum?.."

"...It was Lilo..."

MARK: "Good."

(then, after standing)

"There's a car waiting for you outside to take you to New Jersey - if you can stand the smell. I'll call your wife, to tell her you're on the way."

SONNY_BLACK: (as he rises, starts to protest) "Mark, please..."

MARK: "Come on -- get offa the web sight!"

[SONNY_BLACK turns. PIZZABOY helps him put on his coat]

CUT TO: GangsterBB Forum. BAM is putting luggage into the rear of the car. SONNY_BLACK gets into the front seat.

CUT TO: Interior of car. DON CARDI is seen behind SONNY_BLACK, in the back seat.

DON CARDI: "Good bye, Sonny_Black!"

(Garroting Commences)

And then Sonny Black is banned for life.

Just kidding, Sonny - it's all in good fun. Way to play along!

I've just read that Puzo claimed he had invented the title "Godfather" for the mafia context and that only afterwards the mafia embraced it.

Here's a saying that's food for thought: What's the difference between vengeance and justice? Justice makes you sound like the good guy.