Would Michael have "gone legitimate" without Kay?

If he didn't have Kay in his life as his wife, would Michael still have wanted the Family to "go legitimate"? Or would he have accepted his role as a Mafia boss and continued what his father started?

Fuck Kay. I always hated her. Washed out American rag.

I liked Appolonia. wow!

Tough to say. He wanted to distance himself from the family before he even met Kay (he didn't meet her until after he got out of the Marines), but then of course everything happened.

I think that he would have even without her in his life, however I think if Appolonia had lived then he would have fully embraced being a Mafioso because A) She already knew he was (or at least suspected it), and B) She would have been like Mama Corleone and known not to ask questions or be a bitch to him.

Kay, at first, embodied Michael's idealism. When they were first together, he saw her as a part of his master plan to distance himself from the family in every way possible.

Later, after Apollonia died, Michael was constantly justifying himself to Kay, and even lying to her, and perhaps to himself as well about his legitimacy.

I don't think there is enough evidence in the novel or film to support a contention that Michael would have continued as (or become) mafioso before Appolonia's death. Her death soon after Sonny's murder probably embittered him. Michael murdered Solozzo bcause he was a threat to Vito; Michael sought revenge for Appolonia and Sonny.

Kay had nothing to do with Michael's motivation for legitimacy. As I and others have opined, Michael's concept of legitimacy was different from most peoples. Kay was simply an accoutrement; she was utilized by him to achieve his version of legitimacy.

Right, Oli.
Bringing in Appolonia adds to this interesting thread. I think Michael's decision to kill Sol and Mac was motivated by his perceived need to rescue his father from what appeared to be another, likely successful, attempt on his life. He may also at that point have decided (probably subconsciously) to finally stop rejecting his family and rejoin it ("I'm with you now, Pop"). But I don't think he committed himself to being a Mafia Don at that point.

I see his wooing of Appolonia, and the old-fashioned wedding, as a kind of affirmation of his Sicilian roots and his patrimony--maybe even a rejection of the WASP-y ways he'd adopted, which Kay personified. Had Sonny not been killed, and had Michael returned to the US not in a leadership role in the family, Appolonia would have represented another step in reconciling with his roots and his father. But, her and Sonny's murders put him in the Mafia, all the way. His quest for legitimacy was his way of dealing with his father's aspriations for him and his need to be the boss of a Mafia family. I think he loved Kay in his own way, but she was window-dressing for his quest for legitimacy. The wooing scene in New Hampshire was brilliantly done--not a hint of passion, more like a business negotiation, right down to Michael dressing like a pint-sized banker and being trailed by a limo.

I agree with olivant and TB. I don't think Michael wanted to make the family legitimate for Kay. His father, Vito, had already envisioned this.

Boy talk about HOT!!!



I think both told the story of Michael. With Kay BEFORE he fled I think he truly wanted to get out until they shot Vito of course. With Appolonia he just wanted to solidify his Sicilian roots in the eyes of his Father and everyone else.

Was it Patriarca or Junior that said something about a Sicilian wife wont say shit after being smacked but an American wife wont shut up or something like that? I think that tells the story in this too in a way.

I think that in spite of his words to Kay and his entry into the casino business,Michael had no intention of going legit after the killing of Sollozzo and McCluskey. At first,granted,he was a naive innocent as far as the reality of the Family business.

As things progressed,he transformed into the ruthless,lowlife Mob Boss,and I believed he enjoyed every minute of the power and fear that he generated.

After Sonny and Appolonia got killed,was the massacre of the Five Family heads really necessary? I mean,I know Barzini was going to make a move,but wouldn't it have been enough to just take out Tessio and Barz? The other Family Bosses were not a threat to Michael,except in his head.They could care less about Barzini,and just wanted to get back to business.

Whether he would have continued the Corleone involvement in narcotics or not,the other Families would have realized that a new, strong Boss was running things,and would have honored Mike's decision.

Same with Fredo and Hyman Roth. Both were in effect neutralized,but Mike had to go the extra mile and kill them out of some warped sense of honor.

I can't help thinking that if Tom Hagen was in part III,he would have wound up whacked too.

Bottom line,Mike loved being a gangster,and despite the opportunities he had to really get out and go legit,he took none.

"MONDAY, THURSDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY" LMAO...

WELL-SAID !!!!! The whole story was the internal battle of Michael Corleone...His obligation to his family in the Sicilian sense vs. the legitimacy of the American Dream. He should've killed that bitch for aborting his child though...:)

He wouldn't have put it that way, but there's no doubt that he wanted power, and liked exercising it. Fear was part of exercising power.

In the novel he kills only Tatt and Barz, sparing the others, probably for the reason you cited. I think FFC had all of them killed--and all the killings on the same day--for dramatic effect.


I disagree with you here. Roth showed himself to be incredibly resourceful. As long as he was alive, he was a threat to Michael. As for Fredo: we saw the depths of his hatred and resentment for Michael in the boathouse scene. We saw that he was willing to betray his brother to get what he thought was his. How could Michael ever trust him again?

Yes, he had alternative choices at every stage of his descent into the Mafia life, and he invariably chose to be in the life.

I wonder if Roth would still have been as dangerous to Mike. He would (presumably) have gone to prison,he wouldn't have Johnny Ola ,and any potential rivals might prefer doing business with the new generation. But that's just speculation.

As far as Fredo,he really was not respected by anyone in the Mob,and I think that as untrustworthy as he was,he would never pose a threat to Mike again. He was completely cut off from the family,so he couldn't get any info,he couldn't get near Mike to kill him out of anger,and no enemy of Mike's would trust Fredo because they might be afraid that he would rat them out to get back in Mike's good graces. In short,angry or not,as far as revenge,Fredo was a sputtering, incompetent fool who had lost his brother forever.

I can almost justify all of the other killing,but Fredo's was the one that really showed Mike's true nature and made me despise him.

Turnbull, Are you sure Micheal only kills Barzini and Tattaglia
in the novel? I believe in the novel he also kills Cuneo and Stracci.

No he doesn't. TB has it right.

Okay, Thanks.

Going back to the original question, I think the answer is Mike would have turned out the same Kay or no Kay. He convinced himself killing Sol and McCluskey were not crimes, but acts needed to protect his family, mainly his father. He went to Sicily and found faux redemption in Appolllonia, but when they blew up her car he realized he was not going to get out so easily. When he comes home, he is the heir apparent, and when Vito apologizes about having to drag michael into all this and how there was not time to have the family go "legitimate" Mike promises him "We'll get there." And the sad part is he kind of believes it.

He sees the move to Vegas as the beginning of the road to legitimacy, but Michael's problem is that he was a control freak and completely power hungry. Once he had power, legitimate or otherwise, he would never let go of it. Thats why he could have divorced himself from the olive oil business, and gone fairly legit in the casino business and eventually completely legit in real estate, but he could not accept the usual setbacks one has in legitimate business and get himself out of it without resorting to murder. Accordingly he maintined control in the Comission when he didn't have to, and he had his feet firmly planted in both worlds.

So true, dt.

But then there is still the hypothetical question: would Michael have gone legitimate with Apollonia?

I don't think it was possible for Michael to go "legitimate" by society's standards, married or not. I think the difference would have been that if Appolonia were a "typical" Sicilian wife of that period, Michael simply would have had less incentive to pretend that he was going legit. Put another way: when Michael is dancing with Kay at Anthony's party, she confronts him with the "completely legitimate" promise of seven years [sic] earlier, and he replies, "I'm trying." If Appolonia were his wife at that point, the issue never would have come up.

Exactly, and Michael would never have been completely legitimate.