Michael's Relationship To Tom

I wonder, did Michael not like Tom?

I ask this question based on certain scenes in Parts I &II, most notably the birthday flashback scene at the end of Part II where Tom is chiding Michael for joining the Marines, saying to him that he had discussions with his father about his future and Michael responding with, "You talked to my father about my future?" There's also the scene in Part I, from the longer TV cut, where Tom first learns about Michael forming his own regimes without Tom's approval. Finally, the scene from Part II where Michael wants to know whether or not Tom is "coming along" with the things Michael has to get done.

looking back I wonder if Michael wasn't holding a grudge against Tom for not being what he thought was a better war time consilliere when he advised Sonny to take the deal rather than fight it out with Sollozo?

Any thoughts?

I have stated in several posts that Michael blamed Tom for not protecting the family. Tom's failing to do so resulted in Vito's near fatal shooting, Sonny's murder, and the decline in the family's position in the underworld. In addition, I think Michael resented Tom's having achieved a preeminent place in the family. In the novel it states that Micahel noted that in some ways Toma nd Sonny were even closer than he was to Sonny.

Interesting points.

I thought that Clemenza was responsible for Vito's safety. If I remembering correctly, there was a scene, another one I think was used in the longer Godfather Saga tv edit, where Sonny retrieves his father's address book from his safe and calls Tessio because he thought that Clemenza may of had a hand in his father's assassination attempt.

As for Sonny's murder, we can see Tom ordering bodyguards to follow Sonny as he races off to see his sister.

One thing I wondered about was the scene in Part II where after the botched assassination attempt Michael tells Tom that he's going to be the Don in his absence. I always thought, given Michael's manipulative nature, that he fed Tom the line about thinking of him as a real brother in order to play on Tom's fears that he'd somehow let the family down during the Sollozo business.

Tom was Consigliere the job of which is to protect the family.

Yes, Michael was the master manipulator.

Iceman, you picked a very revealing bit of dialog when you cited the flashback at the end of II. A perfect indication of Tom's role in the family vs. Michael's controlling nature. That's the key to their relationship, IMO. Michael always wanted to be in charge. Tom was Vito's choice for consigliere, not Michael's. Tom was Sonny's choice for brother, not Michael's.

We have gone back and forth, many times, on this board about whether or not Tom could have done more to prevent Sonny's assassination. True, a charging bull elephant couldn't have stopped Sonny from getting in his car, and Tom did dispatch bodyguards after him. But Tom, IMO, should have foreseen that Carlo would want vengeance on Sonny for being publicly beaten and humiliated. In the novel, Tom blames himself for Sonny's death ("He knew now that he was no wartime consigliere...old Genco would have smelled a rat").

But I believe Tom was to blame for letting Michael fall into the Senate's perjury trap. After Michael realizes Pentangeli was alive, Tom says, "Our people with the NY detectives say he was scared, half-dead, talking out loud about how you betrayed him." Where were you, Tom, before you advised your only client to lie under oath? How come you only learned about Pentangeli's survival after Michael committed five acts of perjury?

ok I am late into this debate. As I argued recently I still think Michael and Tom had a brotherly relationship, given that it was not a life insurance to be Mike's brother. It was a strange relationship, not blood related but quite close.

Michael was really small when Tom got into the family (how small is depending on the timeline of the book or the movie) and also Tom was several times the teacher of Michael(we know at least about the time when he was to be educated to be a Don, but I am guessing earlier too). They were both smart and educated so they could probably connect on many levels(like Tom guessed Vito's and Michael's plan), but still they were not equals. Michael indicated a lot of times that Tom is not a Sicilian.

Anyway, my biggest evidence for that Michael did not really blame Tom for the death of Sonny and the injury of Vito is that he survived. Michael never tried to kill Tom, what is more made him Don in his absence and put him back as a consigliere to the family. Michael did not have reservations about killing undeserving family members or friends.

I sort of understand why Tom is not responsible for Vito or Sonny. The one thing I never logically understood why Tom did not get killed for was the abortion. That happened under his watch. I though Michael would have killed anyone for that (and that was the only thing that he could not ever forgive to Kay) .

I still think that this (and probably Michael's condone of other mistakes too) is a decision of the author and the director. For the narrative, in the book and especially in the movie part II when Micheal gets more aggressive we need Tom, and his acceptance and understanding of Michael's deeds.

But did Michael always want to be in charge? It would seem, given the flashback scene at the end of Part II and his introduction scene at the beginning of Part I, that Michael never had any intentions of "getting into the Family business," as Sonny would later say, and that he did so only under extreme circumstances to protect his father and the family.

As for Tom and Sonny, well brothers/siblings of the same age have, generally speaking, more in common with each other than they do with younger or older siblings, so that may have played a part in it.

Regarding the perjury before the senate investigation committee, Michael, by his own admission, had not taken the "5th," as was his right, and instead denied all the charges levied against him. Would he have done so had he known Pentangeli was still alive? Doubtful. But then again Michael and Tom were up against the arch-schemer Roth, so, in this case, I really don't believe Tom can be blamed for this mess.

As for preventing Sonny from leaving that day, could tom really have? After all, Sonny was the acting don, so if he wanted to go, he was going to go. I mean what could have tom done? Order the men to physically restrain Sonny from leaving?

It's interesting that Michael says to Kay at the beginning of the first film that he thinks Tom is going to be made consigliere.

You make a good point about Michael not blaming Tom for Sonny's death, for if he had, he surely would have killed him or required him to make an act of atonement like Rocco had to for his failure to prevent Michael's assassination attempt in Part II.

As for Kay's abortion, I can't see how Tom could be blamed for that when Kay had it done in secret.

Well, it was cut out of the movie but technically Tom was not a consigliere until that night when Genco the old consigliere died.

As for the abortion, it happened during the time Kay was not even allowed to go shopping, so I am sure someone must have taken her to the doctor (for check up I guess). I always wondered how did she managed to get to a doctor who did not know her, and if the doctor knew her which suicidal doctor would have done it. Maybe she picked a time when Tom was away getting the senator stuff done for instance.

Technicalities do not matter though- it is one of the most powerful part of the movie, it has to happen, and since Tom survives, it seems that Michael ends up blaming only Kay and probably himself.

Good points by everyone, and I won't repeat my views on some of the specifics such as whether or not Michael blamed Tom for Sonny and the attempt on Vito, as well as the perury trap.

The essence of the relationship aside from Michael's desire to control and manipulate everyone was there was a latent sibling rivalry between the two. As the youngest son, and the most rebellious, Michael grew up seeing Tom being close to Vito, probably closer than nimself, Fredo and possibly Sonny, and this was something Michael resented. He understood Tom was bright and a talented lawyer, but this probably made him resent him all the more.

One of the telling lines of all this is when he tells Kay that Tom is going to be named consigliere...when he does so he makes it a point to say that Tom is not a Sicilian, and he says it in a disparaging way. He even looks away from Kay when he says it. Implicitly he is saying he doesn't think Tom is the right choice, but instead is getting the job because of Tom's closeness to Vito.

Again DT, you're right on the money, especially about Michael's reference to Tom as not being Sicilian. I think that speaks volumes considering his future estrangement of Tom.

While it's easy to put that interpretation on Michael's comments in light of what came later, I think Michael's demeanor in that scene says otherwise.

While he does add the caveat of Tom not being a Sicilian, to me Michael seems approving of the selection of Tom as consigliere, and somewhat proud of him as well.

The flashback scene notwithstanding, I think Michael's attitude toward Tom changed as Michael himself changed over the years.

I'm curious, what do you suppose Tom's roll in the family would have been if he'd been in Part III? Do you suppose that by then he'd have been completely pushed out, or do you suppose Michael would have kept him on?

LW, I think you missed a few things. For one, Michael introduces him not as his brother, but as Tom Hagen. He could have easily said "My brother Ton Hagen." In huge contrast, he introduces Fredo as his brother:"my brother Fredo"; and Sonny: "when my brother Sonny was a kid, he found Tom Hagen in the street." Not Tom, but Tom Hagen and, again "my brother".

Then later: "He's a good lawyer. Not a Sicilian, but -- I think he's gonna be consiglieri." That's hardly an endorsement.

I think he was giving Kay a tour de force on the family in that scene. Since he didn't consider himself part of the family ("That's my family, Kay, it's not me"), I thought he was speaking as something of a disinterested outsider, so I don't read disapproval into "not a Sicilian."

On the other hand, I read into it that Michael had already spotted Tom's weakness and summarized it brilliantly: "He's a good lawyer--not a Sicilian." A good lawyer could grease the wheels for the family's "legitimization" in Nevada. A Siclian would have smelled a rat re. Carlo and Barzini.

Slightly OT, but I thought it interesting that Vito brought Tom to the Commission meeting to make peace with Tattaglia. It would seem that Vito still had some confidence in him at that point.

Iceman999 : if you research the net you will find the original script for Godfather III by Puzo. They remain close, and Tom is with Michael till the end.

I am not sure Vito ever lost trust in Tom. He told Michael that Tom will understand their plan& why he is out for the time being. Not having Tom around was a luxury for Michael, that he could do because Vito was there to help him. But at any rate during the commission meeting Tom was the consigliere and he was the one who knew about the complete affairs of the family. It would take him years to teach all that to Michael(in the movie we skip this time).

Yes, and at the same time FFC gives us the same tour de force. It's difficult to have all the names said again and again in such a scene without it sounding a little awkward.
When I was watching the movie for the first time, I was still losing track of some characters.

As Danito indicates, it should be obvious even to the casual viewer of the film that what FFC was doing in that scene was identifying the characters for the audience probably on the assumption that many of them had not read the novel. "my brother" introductions are the primary illustrations of that. In the same vein, identifying Tom Hagen for Kay was also for the audience. It provided a segue into the story of how Tom became part of the family while also illustrating the degree of Michael's discomfort with Tom.

Michael always thought Tom was a good lawyer, but he never believed he was a good consigliere, wartime or otherwise. I imagine he would have kept Tom on in III to handle all the foundations and the Immobiliare transactions, and when it got dirty would have pushed Tom aside as he always did.

Not only that, but it would have been unthinkable for Vito to show up alone at that meeting, when everyone else had their consigliere and possibly other advisers present. It would have made Vito look weak: one son dead, second son out of action in Vegas, third son being hunted in Sicily. Very bad strategic move if Tom hadn't been there.