Does anybody understand the Immobiliare deal?

What I understood: Michael agrees to deposit 600 million in the Vatican bank. In exchange he is supposed to get the control of the majority of Immobiliare. The deal fails when the Pope is getting sick and unable to sign the deal.
HARRISON: What if he dies?
KEINSZIG: Then, as you Americans say, all bets are off.
Later, Michael says to Keinszig: "I understand. Your tactics are despicable."

This is where I get lost:
1) What kind of tactics is Michael talking about? As far as I understand, Keinszig argues that only a new pope can sign the deal.

2) Does Michael lose any money? He can withdraw the money from the Vatican Bank, can't he?

And all the rest: The role of Lamberto, the disappearing of Keinszig after Lamberto becomes the new Pope, are a mystery to me.

Maybe this could help;

http://godfather.wikia.com/wiki/Immobiliare

D, much of III is based on the Vatican bank scandal of that period. There have been a few books written about it one of which is God's Banker.

As far as tactics go, Michael is referring to those that can accompany any such deal that involves stratospheric dollar amounts. It has all the elements of international intrigue where you have powerful international players involved and perhaps even governments. The new pope Lamberto (John Paul I in real life) may have been planning to investigate the bank and that's why he may have been murdered. Keinszig was the bank's president who may have been imbezzeling for himself , but more likely for others also. Once Michael deposited the money, it becomes the bank's.

That is onen of the weakest elements in III. All I can guess is that Michael's bailout of the Vatican Bank was supposed to buy the Vatican's approval of his Immobiliare takeover. Gilday, Lucchesi and Kleinzig double-crossed him, probably to try to keep him from interfering in their interests and (I'm guessing) stop their plundering of Immobiliare. Michael wouldn't have been able to retrieve the $600 million he gave to the Vatican Bank. If he made a public stink about it, it would be seen as his bribe of the Vatican in order to gain control of Immobiliare--which it was. The wanted him out--permanently. That would account for the murder plot against him. And the murder plot against the new Pope. The "despicable tactics" probably were all the delays they were throwing at him. Of course, anything that got in Michael's way was "despicable."

The underlying question is: Why was Michael interested in Immobiliare at all? He had already bought "respectability" through his foundation and its support of Sicily, and had been made a Knight of St. Sebastian. I can only suppose that Michael--crook to the core that he was--wanted Immobiliare so he could launder money from his US interests. That's a pretty weak surmise, but then again the plot of III is even weaker.

But remember that Michael cleary said to Don Altobello when he was asked to that he wanted Immobiliare to be "clean".

Right, SB.

I think Michael saw the Immobiliare deal as his last, best chance to truly go legit.

If senators and presidents have men killed, who is truly legitimate? The Vatican! Or so Michael deluded himself into believing. Hence his frustration when he sees how crooked even the Church hierarchy is, making him decide to give up and cede control to Vincent.

But this makes me wonder what Michael's true goal was.

Did he truly wanted to be legitimate? Because why would Michael only give up his criminal business to Vincent when he realised that even the "holy" Vatican itself was crooked? Hadn't he already handed the Corleone crime family over to Joey Zasa?

Or did he only want to pretend and be recognised to be legitimate, and still control his criminal organization so he could use it for his own benefit when the opportunity presented itself?

I don't think Michael understood there was corruption everywhere, and I'll go far as to be a total contrarian and say he was a little naive. Frustrated, he tells Connie "The higher up I go the crokeder it gets." Bottom line, he wanted to "appear legitimate," but ultimately what kept him from it was the fact he was a Sicilian who once was part of the mafia. Thus to some extent he was the victim of prejudice.

"Once was" a part of the Mafia?

Hard to call it prejudice when it's true.

Madonne! How in the world could he not understand that there was corruption everywhere? He went to the church to obtain its help in taking over the Immobliere board. Did he think he would get that help for nothing. As Michael's lawyer said at that meeting "The Corleone’s are prepared to deposit 500 million dollars in the Vatican bank at such time as Mr. Corleone receives majority control of Immobiliare." That's a bribe.

Yes but he didn't think the church was in cahoots with the other Immobiliare members who opposed Corleone. I believe Michael told them their ethics were despicable, to which Lucchese replied "That's quite an indictment from a Corleone."

In other words to the workd these immobiliare characters were seen as "legitimate," when in truth they were not. Michaelwas never seen that way. Thats what bothered him.

It did bother Michael. And guess what happened; Lucchesi dead, Keinszig dead, Archibishop Gilday dead.

Mary dead. Michael dead.

Michael always said he wanted to go legit but never let himself truly go legit. He was just lying to himself and his family the same way a drug addict or alcoholic says they're going to change but never does.

I think it would be interesting to have a drug addiction expert analyze the movies from the angle of Michael being an addict of power.

I bet 99% of people get addicted to power once they have it.

True. But I wonder if they take it to the extremes that Michael took it to. Many people have power but do they kill all of their enemies and even their own brother?

Death, I think you hit the nail on the head. I've never bought into the theory that Michael really wanted to become legitimate. I posted elsewhere that Michael's (and Vito's) definition of legitmate differed from most people's.

Yeah, in their view I think "legit" meant no one had to die to get what they wanted.

Having only seen the GF movies for the first time recently, I couldn't help but look for seemingly the only place on the nets where there is still an ongoing discussion of these masterpieces (meaning I and II).

Anyway, I think that for Michael to come into the limelight with his charities and openly purchasing a controlling interest in a big international corporation such as Immobiliare, his fortune had to be legit by the definitions of US and international laws, not just by his own .
And it had to be that way for some time. Otherwise he'd have been up to his neck in IRS before he could blink.

Which is why the notion that Immobiliare would give him legitimacy makes zero sense.

And frankly, it is unclear whether he lost the money deposited in the bank of Vatican or not. On the one hand, the idea of this particular bank going bust seems ridiculous even in a fictional movie. And Michael certainly didn't behave like somebody who'd just lost the better part of a billion.

OTOH, Keinszig going on the run with a trunk full of money and getting mysteriously killed is modeled on RL events where a bank did go bust. So?

Of course, in terms of recovering the money, it also made no sense to whack Keinszig and the Archbishop, who were the only people who may have been able to get at least part of it back, once properly intimidated...


So, yea, this plot-line is really murky and unsatisfying. It should have gotten either more space and detail or less, IMHO.

Why would Michael want the money back? He used it to bribe the Vatican so he could get a controlling interest in Immobiliare. The new Pope had already ratified the deal so his goal was accomplished. It never occured to me that the bank got bust too.

Exactly, but with the death of Mary, Michael learned the hard lesson that a man profits nothing if he loses his own soul.

It's not clear if the transaction had taken place. Michael's lawyer stated that Michael would deposit $500 million in the Vatican Bank once Michael receives majority control (from the Pope)of the Immob board. He never got that control, so he probably didn't deposit the money. Also, I don't know why he murdreed the Bishop unless it was because he demanded more than $500 million or because he figured he had a hand in Pope JohnPaul's (alleged) murder.

Celeb, the whole thing is based on what did happen. Read God's Banker.

Better part of a billion $(!) is way too huge for any bribe and Michael already had to officially pay for the Immobiliare stocks, no? By comparison, Howard Hughes' whole estate at the time of his death in 1976 was 2.6 billion $ and he was one of the richest men of his time.



Well, the bank was in trouble already, which is why they needed Michael's (massive) deposits. And if the bank didn't go bust, why did Keinszig run? This whole segment is modelled on Banko Ambrosiano crash isn't it?
Of course, the idea of the Bank of Vatican going bankrupt is fairly ludicrous, which doesn't help this plot one bit.

Nor does it make any sense for Corleones to murder Keinszig. His RL counterpart was removed because he knew too much and tried to blackmail both the church and the mafia, whose money he had laundered. But Michael's dealings with him were above board and he was no danger to Corleones.

In fact, once the Immobiliare deal was ratified, none of them were a danger anymore, since Michael had organized his business as a proper corporation and once it had the controlling interest, it wouldn't have greatly mattered whether Michael himself lived or died.

Calo going for Luchese in revenge for Don Tommasino and maybe Altobello's poisoning made sense, but the rest of it was just gratuitous and stupid, IMHO.

This also makes me wonder what exactly Michael gave Vincent. I mean, he intended to head the corporation himself, with help of financial managers and lawyers no? So, did he just give Vincent the illegitimate part - Zaza's leftovers?

And if so, why the whole "you can call yourself Corleone" part? Why not just have Corleone crime "family" become Mancini, clearing the Corleone name and blood family of crime associations once and for all?
Would have been much more realistic, too, given how RL mafia families changed names throughout their history when bosses changed.

He didn't? Was it not so that when the Pope ratified the deal, Michael got the Vatican's share in Immobiliare and thereby gaining majority control?

Good point. But remember, this is The Godfather Part III.



He had double-crossed Michael and maybe also others and when his scheme was uncovered, he knew his life would be in jeopordy as he realized what kind of a man Michael was. Not only Michael would have wanted him dead, but probably also Lucchesi, who may have considered Keinzsig a potential liability and therefore a threat to his political carreer. That's how the minds of those crooks work. If there's only the slightest risk, it would be taken care of.



Revenge is a major subtheme in The Godfather Trilogy.



Zasa's leftovers more than likely which was the remaining Corleone crime family.



Although romanticized, it was probably Michael's final recognition of Vincent being Sonny's legitimate son. Something what Vincent and his mother Lucy always wanted.

Btw, welcome to the boards Celebel, I enjoy you're thoughts.

This isn't as complicated as some are making it. To get control of the Immobliere board, Michael approaches the Church through Gilday who demands what is, in effect, a bribe. Pope John Paul is aware of financial corruption in the Vatican and apparently takes action to remedy it. Then, he is, apparently, murdered to stop him.

Harrison tells Michael that the Pope ratified the Immobliere deal with Michael. However, now, with Gilday's and Keinzig's murder, all on the Vatican side who were party to the deal are dead. So, we don't know if Michael ever deposited the money to complete the deal. In addition, ratification by the Pope may very well have been verbal, but in any case would have had to be effected by legal proceedings and we don't know if that ever took place. Even if it did, Michael is a murderer who easily opts to murder those who stand in his way or who he considers his enemies. The trilogy of murders that climax III illustrate that.

As I posted above, the book God's Banker is just one of several that relate the real life events surrounding the Vatican Bank scandal that did take place.

I thought that Michael deposing the money was the perquisite for ratification, which is why he is upset and says "your tactics are despicable" when he fulfills his part of the bargain, but they don't? And if their murders would jeopardize his deal, then all the more reason to refrain, no?

I also imagine that the Pope's ratification just required his signature, since all the papers have been prepared for the long time. So, in the end Corleone Corp. did have Immobiliare.

OTOH, if Gilday and Co. didn't intend to declare bankruptcy and appropriate Michael's money, I really don't see what their plan was.
Because even without him, his corporation could withdraw the money, surely, once they were denied the control of Immobiliare.



Even so, Michael usually had good business/survival reasons (from his PoV)for whacking people, with arguable exception of Fredo, but then he was at his darkest when he ordered it.

Also, it seems that he had kept on the straight and narrow for considerable time, which emboldened Zaza, Altobello and the old country crew to move against him. And Michael really was tired of it all and regretful.

So, why go for gratuitous murders now or allow Vincent to? Not that Vincent, who just a few months ago was a small hood who probably never left NY being able to pull it off on a completely foreign turf is in the least believable in the first place, but that's a subject for another topic, I suppose.

I mean, Lucchese was clearly the one behind it all, with him gone everybody else would have been properly intimidated and made no further problems.
The revenge motive would have made sense if the murders happened after Mary's death, not before.



Well, IMHO the story would have made more sense if Coppola adhered to the real events more closely.

Also, is it believable for Michael to be surprised by the crookedness of Vatican? Wasn't it common knowledge that the Church could be quite shady in it's dealings - financial and otherwise?

Vincent's previous role is unclear. He could have been a nobody, or a big player in Zasa's organization. In an earlier version of the script, Michael promoted him to caporegime which suggests he could have already been a made guy. I always thought his complete transition from a loud-mouthed hoodlum to a careful thinker like Michael was a little weird. Considering that Part III took place within a year. But with guys like Neri and Michael at you're side, I think I even could have pulled it off myself.



If you double-cross a person like Michael, murder is an obvious revenge. Keinszig was part of the conspiracy to deceive Michael, as was Gilday, which was more than enough reason for being killed. Mafiosi sometimes even kill people for looking at them the wrong way.

Why would Michael prioritize what they wanted over what he and Vito wanted for their whole lives? Namely, complete public respectability of the Corleone name. Re-naming the remains of criminal organization after Mancini would have been the final step.
And also, wouldn't it be higher honor to Vincent to have the criminal "family" named after him as undisputed Don, rather than being seen as another guy in somewhat unclear/subservient position re: Corleones like Zaza?



Thanks! Glad to be here. Kind of difficult to kindle a satisfying GF discussion elsewhere and I just have to talk about it, LOL!



I don't see how. Zaza considered him a punk and he wasn't a major earner either.



I found it really jarring - far more than Sofia's acting, frankly. Vincent's story just doesn't make any sense to me. Within a few months (IIRC, Michael was awarded knighthood in autumn and Mary is shot on Easter) he turns from a small NY hoodlum who didn't particularly distinguish himself by the age of 33 into Michael's right hand? ORLY?

Even Michael himself, who was a prodigy and had a much more useful background, needed years of apprenticeship. And it was still a stretch.

And of course, I don't buy Vincent being able to organize a murder spree in Europe either and on such on a short notice too. He probably never even left NY in his life before hooking up with Michael! Neri wouldn't be that much help either, he never operated in Europe.



Maybe, but Michael didn't want to operate like that anymore and him being in the public limelight so much made it a bad idea too.
I mean, it was known in Vatican that he butted heads with them and then they die?! Even Italian Mafia operated much more circumspectly as far as I know.

Michael bribed Gilday so that the Church would allow for Michael to buy into Immobiliare, and in conjunction with the Church he could control the board of directors. When Pope John died, the deal was ff because the Pope had to ratify it,
Then when John Paul came in BEFORE he died, the deal was ratified, so Michael in fact did control Immobiliare. The other board members who Michael killed and who were in cahoots with Gilday to double cross Mike, were dispensible to Immobiiare, which was the largest landholder in Europe. Whether or not Michaelhad the stomach to do business on that level after Mary's death is another story altogether. I doubt Vincent could have stood in those shoes.

Ofcourse Zasa considered him a punk, also a bastard. Michael considered Zasa a "small time enforcer", but that small time enforcer organized a killing spree that nearly got Michael killed. Zasa was obviously supported by Don Altobello and Lucchesi, but Vincent got support from Michael. Both Zasa and Vincent were pawns used by bigger players in a major chess game, almost like how it happens in real life.

Profaci also considered the Gallo brothers nothing more than small time hoodlums, but they gave him a pretty hard time.

I'm not sure if Vincent wasn't a good earner. His did have his own club which looked pretty nice from the inside. Anyway, he was definitely nothing more than just a soldier when he was introduced.



Don't forget that they got help from Calo and the Tommasino family. The Corleone family was the most dominant crime family in New York and maintained close ties to Sicily over the years. They were also doing business on a global scale. So I consider it plausible that they were able to do such things.

My memory is hazy...why did Michael punk Joey Zasa in AC?

Because by then Michael knew that Zasa knew Michael was keeping him frim rising up in the commission.

Which was implausibly stupid. And what was Zaza saying about having worked very hard to guarantee everybody's profits? Did he provide security for Corleone casino operation? In this case, he kind of had the point and Michael stiffing him was a declaration of war.

Of course, Zaza getting away with the helicopter massacre in a prominent location in 1979 (!) and Michael not being tied to it despite his checks being on all the bodies are huge plot-holes. Particularly since all Atobello and Lucchese had to do to stop Michael's bid for Immobiliare was to embroil him in a public scandal.

I definitely agree. But if you pay attention to every possible plot hole or example of sloppy writing in Part III, you may go mad.

The Godfather Part III was made by Coppola as he needed the money to save his studio (if it was't already bankrupt in the first place). So Paramount gave him an offer he coulnd't refuse. Puzo and Coppola asked Paramount for at least six months to write the screenplay. But as Paramount wanted a release before christmas they only got six weeks! That's why there are so many plot holes in the film.

The plot holes cover themselves in mafia movies...the police didn't come after Michael because they were on the payroll.

I always thought Michael went out of his way to be very mean to Zasa and it was uncharacteristic, IMO. If Mikey didn't like you or think well about you, he killed you. Maybe this was him getting old, but overall, I never understood it. But that said I haven't watched III in a few years. It's time to dust them all off again.

I think Michael should have avoided insulting Zasa and moving on with his life. He was retiring anyway. Why insult someone have to worry about them coming back at you?

I agree. there doesn't seem to be any substantive reason for Michael to be antagonistic toward Zasa given that Michael was quite intelligent and discerning. Remember: "Keep your enemies closer."

It probably started when Vincent accused Zasa of saying "fuck Michael Corleone". It didn't look like Zasa was showing much respect during that meeting either. Especially when he sat in Vito's old chair like he was the king himself.

I always thought Michael installed Zasa purely as a figurehead. Michael considered Zasa small potatoes just as Pentangeli. Through those figureheads he could maintain his influence without getting the blame of being a mobster himself. Why would he otherwise stop Zasa from rising in the Commission.

Unlike Pentangeli, Zasa was really an enemy of Michael, and Michael was keeping him down with the commission. In fact Michael was not especially mean to Zasa.... instead he set a classic trap for him. When Vincent tld Michael that Zasa was
going around saying "f*ck Michael Corleone," Michael asked Zasa
if it was true, and Zasa said something like anyone who would say that is a dog....Michael then repeated this...he said yes such a man would be a dog....after which he told Vincent he had to apologize to Zasa. It was after that when Vincent told Michael Zasa knew Michael was holding him back when Michael then offered Vincnt the chance to work for him. When Vincent killed Zasa's henchmen in his apt. Michael was not pleased because they had knives and he used a gn. Then when Vincent killed Zasa, Michael was furious because he knew Zasa was acting on someone else's orders, and he was still unsure of who.

Another implication that Altobello was a Corleone member. Would Zasa be a puppet for another crime boss while he himself wanted to become the most powerful one? Zasa was sort of a street boss or acting boss for the Corleones, although he probably thought of himself to be the boss. And the boss of what was once known as the most powerful family would never let himself be controlled by a rival mobster. My interpretation is that Altobello was a consigliere/mentor to Zasa.

Why let Zaza know that Michael was on to him? What happened to keeping friends close and enemies closer? And when did Michael previously care what people called him behind his back as long as they did what he wanted?
Not to mention, that if he depended on Zaza, then why undermine him before the Commission - something that was bound to come back to Zaza eventually. And if he didn't - why meddle at all?

IMHO, this whole "dog" conversation was as out of character for the previously established Mike as was the gangster pinky ring that he sported in part III. It was something that a person who came up from the street and still cared about the street rep would concern himself with.



I am not sure about that. Aren't screenplays often substantially re-written in a very short time anyway? IMHO, it was more Coppola's desire, once he succombed to the inducement, to go for not just one, but two cash-cow GF movies. I feel that the decisions that I dislike most about GF III are based on that .

But that was just it, Zasa wasn't doing what he wanted. He was saying 'fuck Michael Corleone' and was dealing drugs in many old neighborhoods. Not to mention that he was probably already planning to take over and move Michael out of the picture.



If you want to be sure, just read one of the reference books about the films; Harlan Lebo's The Godfather Legacy or The Godfather Book by Peter Cowie.