Talia Shire on Michael Corleone

This is a short, yet interesting interview. Talia goes into some detail about the violence in the films. Now, this is obviously from a woman's point of view. But in retrospect, she makes a very good point when she says that the single most violent act in the trilogy was when Michael slammed the door in Kay's face. I never gave that ANY thought, but I'm a guy. Looking at it now, though, I can honestly see her point.

I just watched The Godfather Legacy thing again. I can see Talia's point from a female's point of view... and no, please don't call me Caitlin.

However, in my opinion, killing your own brother is at the top of my list for most violent act of Michael Corleone. Only silver lining... Mama Corleone didn't have to grieve the loss of another son.

Yeah, on the History Channel, I think. I was watching a little bit here and there myself.

I always catch something new. Interesting how they analyze the psychology of the characters, story & dialogue.

Joe Mantegna: "Everybody wanted to be in this movie, it's the Italian 'Star Wars.'

Within the Trilogy, Fratricide reaches the apogee of violence. It's not so much the physical act of murder as it is concept of one's own blood being expendable.

However, I agree with Shire that the scene she cites is one nearing that apogee because Michael did it himself and gave no thought to its effect upon his children.

I can't go with that - violence is violence.

Excellent point, Oli. Michael could not rest with the knowledge that an adversary had survived. He was too far gone at that point.

Now, I seriously doubt that he ever would have physically hurt Kay, sans the slap in the face in the, "it was an abortion" scene.

However, you make an excellent point about him not caring about the effect slamming the door in her face would have on his children.

I'm no Godfather trilogy expert. I have seen Godfather and GF 2 many times so I guess I can offer a female's point of view. It's about POWER, not violence imo.

Michael betrayed Kay. Fact. By Kay having an abortion, she had complete power over him. He needs to take the power back.

(My opinion of the abortion scene and the closing door scene )

Kay represents all his weaknesses, his failures. He cannot even keep his wife happy nor cares to know anything negative about his children. Michael is a coward who cannot cope in the NON-Mafia world. (He is not even 1/4 of the man his father was in that respect) Vito was powerful as a father and a don. And YES eventually, Michael would have verbally and physically abused Kay.

Kay still has some power over Michael because she took something from him, a son. I always say that there's no such thing as "forgive and forget" in the Italian male DNA. It shouldn't be that way with your wife, your partner, the one who you gave your heart to. He should have worked things out but he was too weak and he would also be admitting he was wrong, that he BETRAYED his own wife. Instead, Michael needs to show his wife AND KIDS that no matter what he does RIGHT or WRONG, he is ALWAYS RIGHT. He will show his ultimate power. So when he closes the door on Kay, he is well aware of the effect it could have on his kids. He needs to convince himself and show his children that he is the one who has been betrayed. Kay went against BOTH families. He needs to show that he is powerful in both of his worlds: His own family and his mafia famiglia. He needs to take back the power Kay once had over him.

(For those of you who are GF buffs please go easy on me, like I said, I'm no expert on these films. Thnx)

In your opinion, what act or failure to act constitutes Michael's betrayal of Kay?

Hi Mustache Pete how are you? Michael betrayed Kay from the time they were dating saying "That's my family, that's not me." at Connie's wedding. He stayed with that same delusional belief that the Corleone family will one day be legitimate. He knew how the game would play out. Yet, he lied to her to convince her to marry him and be the mother of his children. She was quite naive too and trusted him. He betrayed her. He was never straight with her.

To answer A girl and Pete: Michael was not in love with Kay; his marriage to her was not out of love. Thus, he did not care enough for her to abandon his life of crime. He did not care enough for their children to abandon his life of crime. He was not weak; he just plain did not want to give up what he had, really had.

And Pete: his act of betrayal was not abandoning his life of crime or, to paraphrase his own words, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate.

I agree completely, Oli. Michael didn't love Kay. He loved the idea of being married to a WASP for appearances sake.

In a perfect world, Apollonia Vitelli lives, heads back to the States with Michael, and has full-blooded, strong, Italian-American children.

Oli, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for chiming in. (That's why you won't see me on the GF threads, I do not know much about what motivates these characters to do the things they do) Thanks again Oli.

The best commentary on Michael's betrayal of Kay, IMO, comes near the beginning of III. Michael, with his usual self-justification fantasy, tells Kay: "I spent my LIFE protecting my family from the horrors of this world." And Kay replies, "But you became my horror." Right on, Kay.

I'm good. I hope you're well, too.

I don't think Michael ever knew how the legitimacy game would play out. I think he does probably play out the same scenario in his head over and over through the years, but that no matter what point he wants to reach, he eventually finds out "there just wasn't enough time." For instance, any rational person would react to Tahoe assassination attempt by moving to a sheep ranch in New Zealand or somewhere, but I think Michael's personality looked at it as confirmation of how difficult and dangerous his plan was, so that he had to go even slower, eliminate even more potential enemies.

That's not to say that Michael was all there: he was a psycopath, but I think that he was trustworthy within his little group.

Powerful scene, TB.

Such a shame because Part III DID have its moments. Just a case of the whole being lesser than the sum of its parts.

Interesting topic. I buy the idea that the door scene (which parallels the end of GFI) is a covertly violent scene. However, the literalist in me just cannot buy anything being the most violent GF scene other than Sonny's death. THAT was a massacre - a massacre of one man and a man we as an audience genuinely cared about (unlike the many victims of the chopper scene in GFIII).

Another interesting thing about this interview is her focus on morality.

In particular, her claim that Vito's negative reaction upon learning that Michael killed McCluskey and Sollozzo was based on the damage to Michael's soul, rather than the ruination of Vito's plan for "Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone."

I never thought about it that way, but I think she may be right. Tom Hanks's mafia hitman character in "Road to Perdition" is motivated by a similar desire to keep the soul of his son (also Michael, IIRC)clean.

I'm less sure that I agree with her assertion that Vito spends the whole movie searching for redemption. His "I don't apologize" line belies that claim.

W, I disagree with her. I find nothing in the movie to indicate that Vito's disappointment at learning about Michael was due to anything except his loss of Michael as a legitimate-world asset.

However, in the novel Vito states at the Dons meeting that none of them wants to see their children follow them into this life. Regardless, Vito wasn't thinking about Michael's soul.

Having re-watched this, I think Talia is actually talking about the end of the first movie. She talks about Michael lying to Kay.

Pete, you may be right. I view the GF's door closing as Michael shutting Kay out of his mafia life while II's door closing was his shutting her out of his personal life.

wow, great find PB.

By GF III, do you guys think Connie blamed Michael for the way her life turned out? I get the feeling that her loyalty is almost born out of desperation as much as it is familiarity or familial obligation. Connie didn't seem to have much by the third movie and there's this underlying sense of distance and coldness to her character.

Very interesting observation, slumpy.

We saw Connie transition from hysterical blamer at the end of GF, to sluttish rebel at Anthony's party, to on-her-knees supplicant at Mama's wake, to Michael's quasi-caretaker in III. And, there's something in her expression when she alludes to Fredo's "drowning" in III that hints that she really knows Michael had him killed, but has reached some kind of accommodation with her situation--that Michael is her last link to family and her provider, and she has to swallow it.

I have a way-out theory: Michael may have been "punishing" Connie for bringing Carlo into the family. Carlo was responsible for Sonny's assassination, which caused Michael to have to return to America and become the Don. Michael knew he had to avenge Sonny by having Carlo whacked. Doing it right after Michael stood godfather to Carlo and Connie's baby was a good tactical move (keep Carlo inside Michael's trap). At the same time, it was cruel to Connie.

SPOILER:

In the novel, Kay takes the kids to New Hampshire after the Great Massacre. Michael sends Tom to bring her back. Kay brings up Carlo's assassination right after the church. Tom blandly replies that it was Connie's idea that Michael stand godfather to their baby--not Michael's.

Similarly, it's Connie's idea that Michael "forgive" Fredo--not Michael's idea. Again, "forgiving" Fredo put him in Michael's trap. But, imagine Connie's feelings of guilt, knowing that her plea for Michael to forgive Fredo put him there. Yes, Michael could have had Fredo whacked anytime, anywhere. But doing it right there near the compound, where Fredo was supposedly forgiven and welcomed again, must have been a devastating blow to Connie. Maybe she rationalized Fredo's "drowning" as a way for her not to have to deal with her (inadvertent) role in putting Fredo in harm's way.

I don't know what in III would lead anyone to think that Connie was anything except molto forte. She brought Vincent to Michael's attention, she commanded the hit on Saza, and she promoted Vincent as Michael's heir.

I don't know, it's just a "sense" thing. Everything she says and does is undercut with this sort sad defeatedness. In another thread someone pointed out that Connie, like Michael rebelled against the status quo of their family and it was only after she had lost everything that she really returned to Michael's side.

That isn't to say she can't be strong or resolute at any given time, but is she happy? does she enjoy her lot in life? To me it would seem like she doesn't really. Hence the question, she seems unhappy, so does she blame Michael for that unhappiness? I think it's a possibility; even if she does harbor some lingering resentment, it doesn't undermine the fact that in the end she is still loyal to her family. Blood runs thick, after all, siblings can do awful stuff to each other, but in the end, we mostly seem willing to set those resentments aside because family is family.

Way out there, TB? That's spot-on accurate.

He was punishing Connie at a very sensitive time, which was cruel. But Michael was a cruel man. But at the same time, he was half-wrong in doing so. After all, it was Sonny who introduced Carlo to Connie to begin with .

Whoa! TB/PB. It was Sonny that brought Carlo into the family.

I just said in the post above yours that it was Sonny who introduced Carlo to Connie in the first place.

Texans. I swear to God....

Well PB, in your reply to TB you stated:

"That's spot-on accurate.

He was punishing Connie at a very sensitive time,"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H0DiISK2A9Y

Cracks me up every time.

I also stated that "he was half-wrong in doing so."

You say tomato. It's only semantics.

Sonny introduced Carlo to Connie, so he did, literally, bring him into the family. But, it was Connie's decision to marry Carlo, which is where the trouble began--and ended.

Carlo only married her to get into the family. He figured he'd get made for sure. I think the book even refers to Connie as unappealing or plain looking. But I could be wrong about that because I haven't read it in a few years.

Puzo called her "shrewish." So, I suppose Carlo was involved in "The Taming of the Shrew."

That's it! Exactly the passage I was thinking of, TB.

Puzo could be a real asshole at times. I think he had a little self-hate in him. If you read "The Fortunate Pilgrim" from an Italian American's point of view, you'll know what I mean. He gave us "The Godfather." I'm just sayin'.

Very true, PB. Ethnic writers are often cruel to their fellow ethnics when writing about their foibles. Attest Philip Roth and Mordecai Richler on Jews, and John Gregory Donne, George V. Higgins and Jimmy Breslin on Irish.

Decades ago, two Irish newspaper columnists gave 180-degree opposite views of their fellow ethnics. To Pete Hamill, writing in the NY Post, every Irishman was a poet, a revolutionary, a friend of the working man, a fighter for truth and justice. To Jimmy Breslin (NY Daily News), every Irishman was a drunk, a boor, a lout and a bigot.

You probably remember when Breslin was running for president of the NY City Council on Norman Mailer's mayoral ticket. Breslin tried to give a speech in Gaelic Park in the Bronx, and was almost lynched.

Absolutely, TB.

Coincidentally, Hamill wrote a beautiful novel a few years back called "Snow in August." It's set in the forties, and it's about a young Irish boy from Brooklyn who befriends a Rabbi from Eastern Europe. If they have it at your library, you may just like it. I did.

And I told you about Breslin. My grandfather was a typesetter and later a union delegate at the Daily News for over thirty years. My grandfather hated his guts (although, to his credit, Breslin did come up to the Bronx for the funeral). Dick Young (the sportswriter) was described in similar terms by my grandfather. But it sounds much nicer in Italian .

And I remember the Gaelic Park incident fairly well. I was just a kid, and that's way up on Broadway by the Yonkers border. But my Dad had a very close Irish friend up on Bainbridge, and I remember him ranting about it even at a young age.

Yeah, Higgins was a snob. He was too intellectual for his own good, and he often described his fellow Irishmen in lowly terms. Cutting his teeth as a prosecutor probably didn't help, but that's no excuse.

His first three novels were great ("The Friends of Eddie Coyle" an all-time great). But after that, I believe he began to read too many of his own reviews about his realistic dialogue and whatnot. Too many run-on sentences and storylines that he had no business writing about. After "The Digger's Game" and "Cogan's Trade," you can keep the rest.

"It means he's content to be a jerk."

Couldn't agree more, PB. "The Friends of Eddie Coyle" and "The Digger's Game" are two of the all-time greatest crime novels. "Cogan's Trade" also is worthy (although the movie version, "Killing Them Softly," must have had Higgins spinning in his grave). After that: straight downhill.

I KNEW that double entendre wasn't getting by you, TB .

That's cuz I'm smaht. Not as smaht as you. But I can hold my own with most of the board. Especially lately .

I vaguely remember that. After the election, Breslin said he was ashamed to have taken part in an event that caused the bars to be closed for a day (which was true back then).