Hello,
I'm a new member on this board and I don't know if this topic is going to be deleted, because it's about an issue that's been discussed so much, but I'm looking for people with similar views.
I'm also a fairly new fan of the trilogy (always heard about the movies but only a few years ago took the time to watch them). I've seen them at least 6 times now (and read the book).
Michael Corleone immediately became my favourite character, because he's so fascinating and complex. I read posts on this board and it seems that most people in here seem to think he was all about his ego and cold-blooded since he was born. And this is not exactly how I see the character in the movies. During the first part of the first movie, he is completely normal. He does not come across as cold at all when he's with Kay, buying Christmas gifts, for example, or when he's in the hospital with his father and telling him he's with him now.
Certain kind of coldness might be in someone's nature but that doesn't mean that's the only thing there is or that the person is destined to become a ruthless murderer (Sicilian or not). What Michael eventually became seems like a gradual process caused by all the wrong choices that he made or was forced to make. After that hospital scene his affection for his father seemed so profound that it didn't occur to me that he would ever turn away from Vito, no matter what he'd have to do.
In part two he simply seems like someone who has completely "turned off" his feelings of compassion, because he's not able to face the terrible truth of the life he's chosen and his own actions. He's very aware of it. In part III, he says that clearly: "I betrayed my wife... I betrayed myself."
His flaws - his paranoia, his greed, his anger have overtaken him and so he's psychologically incapable of getting out, no matter how much he wants to. And he clearly wants to. It's just that wanting it and actually doing it are two different things (Michael at that point needed "hardcore therapy").
In part two he often looks guilty to me, especially when he's with Kay, because she's the one who's the reminder of his conscience.
People become terrible and start lashing out on others (especially their loved ones) when deep down inside they're not comfortable with themselves and happy with what they're doing. And Michael Corleone certainly seems like a man who's far from being happy with himself or what he's doing (unlike his father Vito).
I like that character precisely for that same reason... that there's this conflict in him. Not because he was "evil all along".

So I'm wondering if there are people who see him in a similar way.

Very well put! Although we may call him heartless and ruthless at times, I think that we all agree that he gradually became those things due to the circumstances that came up in his life along with the losses of those he loved and the attacks made on those he loved. There is no question that he grew cold because of circumstances.

But by the time part II rolls around it goes beyond being put into a situation due to circumstances. By GFII, it looks as though Michael has now started to enjoy what he is now involved in. It's as though Michael now needs to keep feeding his ego! Michael now loves being this all and mighty powerful Don who enjoys masquerading around as this legitimate businessman who who hobknobs with Governors, Senators and high society people. It's only when the attempt is made on his life that he is somewhat brought back down a few notches and made to realize that no matter how many high society people he surrounds himself with that in truth he is still a common mafia hood.

And I believe that this makes Michael even more angry and stone cold. But not for the same reasons that he became the way that he did in GF1. This time it's because an attack was made on his ego!

In GFI an attack was made on those that he loved. His family had been threatened and he needed to protect it even though he was not involved.

In GFII an attack was made on his ego, on the now all powerful and mighty businessman Michael Corleone. Yes, his family could have been hurt or killed in this attack, but I don't believe that this was really his main concern. I think that he was utterly shocked that someone attempted to kill the big bad Don Michael Corleone!

That to me, is the difference in the Michael Corleone of GFI and the Michael Corleone of GFII.

As for the Michael Corleone of GFIII. Many of us have different opinons as to how Michael really felt. But I think that we ALL agree that he really did feel guilt and remorse for the things that he did, for the killing of Fredo, etc.

But at the same time, was he really that willing to let go and walk away? Was the "Just when I though I was out, they pull me back in" line really what he was feeling inside? Or was there still a part of him that wanted to hold on to the life that he become so accustomed to. Did Michael really want to let go of all the power and stature that he acheived?

Personally, I don't think so. I think that he manipulated Vincent. I think that he was "pulling the strings" and somewhat maintaining control over Vincent in order to keep a partial hold on "the life!" He could not completely let go.

Welcome to the boards! Great topic!

If you think about it, Michael was pretty much like his father. Vito started out just like most people. Then he's sees his mother murdered and Fanucci takes his job away from him, so he embarks on a path that seeks revenge and to insulate him and his family against oppression. As an elderly man, he mellows. The novel expresses that latter part of his life better than the movie.

All true olivant. But mostly as far as GFI goes.

By the time GFII rolls around, Michael is nothing like his father.

Welcome, Sinister--hope to see many more thoughtful posts from you!
I believe that Michael had choices at every stage of his criminal career. He could have chosen not to commit any of the crimes he was involved in--starting with the murders of Sollozzo and McCluskey. But, as Vito said in the novel, "A man has but one destiny." Any of us might commit crimes if we were exposed to the opportunities. Most of us won't, or don't. But Michael chose the life he led--he wasn't forced into it. This isn't to say that there was no element of tragedy in his life, or goodness, but his choices made his life.

Hm, I kind of agree with some of the things said in here, but not totally.

I see Vito's hypocrisy as much worse than Michael's.

It's just interesting how the word "cold" is used in reference to Michael's character. In my opinion he seems quite the opposite even. Tom Hagen is quite a "cold" character, not Michael. Michael is too passionate and sensitive for his own good. Sensitive people tend to have more sensitive egos as well.
When his own brother betrays him, he's so hurt he's unable to forgive ("You broke my heart!... You're nothing to me now.").
When he's furious, he's too furious to forgive. When he loves, he loves so deeply he's ready to sacrifice himself for those people. Which is shown when he's standing on the hospital steps to guard his father, while risking his life... and when he's shielding Kay with his own body to protect her from the bullets in part two. All of this seems to be instinctive.

I'd say him growing "cold" is not exactly the essence of his nature but more like a consequence... it's due to the constant conflict within him (between his "dark side" and his conscience). Vito didn't have that conflict, that's why he is warmer as well.. not stressed out. Nothing to feel guilty about (even though he should have).

In any case, Michael is very complex... at least Al Pacino makes him so on screen. In all three movies

I agree that our choices make our lives. But our choices are already predetermined by our genes. So the story seems to suggest that these men were destined to become criminals and murderers, because it's in their blood. Which leaves you with a tremendous feel of loss and tragedy. Especially in Michael's case, because he had such a promising future.

Michael murdered his brother.That's the only salient difference between Michael's and Vito's depravity. With that exception, they were willing to murder anyone to get what they wanted.

I don't agree. As much as Michael was the son most like his father, there were several differences between the two. As you said, his ordering the murder of his own brother is one difference.

Michael also developed a coldness, one that he even showed towards his own family. Towards his wife, and towards Tom. Vito would never have acted in the ways that Michael did with his wife or Tom. Never with his own family members to the extent that Michael did. And Michael did not have the knack for saying no, for speaking to people in a stern yet non offending manner. Vito did have those abilities. Michael was willing to manipulate his own family to get what he wanted and where he wanted to be. Vito didn't manipulate his own family members.


Michael also liked the spotlight somewhat. Liked surrounding himself with the high society types. The lavish lifestyle and surroundings. Vito would never allow himself to be a part of the kind of exposure that Michael allowed himself to be a part of.

I do agree with the originator of this topic that Michael was a much more complex character than Vito was.




Yes (Vito outside the family, Michael in or out), I agree with that 100%.

Yes indeed. And that's one of the great strengths of the Trilogy.
Vito's frame of reference was much different than Michael's. He was the product of a land in which "justice" was synonymous with power, and all power was in the hands of the local Mafioso. His primary need was to survive. When his family's security was threatened by Fanucci, he killed, as would have happened in Sicily. The criminal empire he built was primarily aimed at providing financial and physical security for his family (the "Mall" is a fitting metaphor). Since politicians hold power in America, he extended his reach to politicians. But (and for me, this is the key difference twixt Vito and Michael), he saw power as a means to an end--maintaining family security and independence ("I refused...to be a puppet on a string...").

For Michael, power was an end unto itself. He was an obsessive controller and manipulator--a power junkie. The conflict within him was his doomed-to-failure quest to legitimize himself and his enterprises while never giving up the illegality and violence that generated individual control and power that he wanted--couldn't live without. He could have been completely legit in Nevada, but he hid his interests in the hotels he owned and controlled, and still kept his hand firmly in control of Pentangeli and his New York criminal empire. And he never stopped grasping for more--pushing out Klingman, lusting after Roth's Havana gaming empire, killing everyone who crossed him. Even in III, when he was the "respectable" patron of a wealthy foundation and a Papal Knight, we saw in the beginning that he still controlled the Commission (Vincent tells him, early on, "everyone knows you're keeping Zasa from rising in the Commission); and he presides over a Commission meeting when the shooting started. And, while the film never explains why Immobiliare was so important to his "legitimacy," I'll bet he wanted to use it as a money-laundering conduit.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." Yeah, sure, Michael.

That is exactly why Mike and Vito are different, Mike has to fight himself emotionally every time when he goes closer to the mob whilst Vito was immune to it. Vito saw crime as a neccesary evil to survive in america whilst Mike knew he was doing something wrong.

However slowly he becomes engulfed in to the mafia world and becomes the mafia don we see in part 2 due to the corrupt world he becomes part of.

Zaf-the-don, I agree with you the most so far.

The fact that Michael in the beginning made plans to stay away from his family and chose someone like Kay to be with already shows that something inside of him was reaching for the "normal world" (thinking:"I won't be part of this, because it's wrong and I'm better than that"). And that "something" kept on causing that conflict within him; hence he keeps deluding himself that he's going to become legitimate ("once I become legitimate, all is fine, I am no longer a criminal, I don't have to feel bad, I will be redeemed" etc.). When you look at him, from the moment he kills Sollozzo and McCluskey, everything seems to be a burden for him. In a way it wasn't for Vito. Michael felt disdain for both - the crime organization (basically who he himself became)and "senators and governors". In his mind, one wasn't better than the other (don't be naive and think they both don't have men killed). When someone is deep down ashamed of himself and hates himself, he often blames the world for it. And everybody else suffers... especially when this person holds such tremendous power in his hands.
Michael was clearly not right for this "job". Because he wasn't able to separate business from personal... as in business from his own feelings. In order to "function" properly as the Don, he simply could not allow himself to feel. As a result, all these horrible things happened one after another. Because he had to be "strong for his family". That's what he believed, but he had become blind to the reality. This corrupt world was suited for the less sensitive and more balanced personality like Vito's, but it pushed Michael over the edge. (He should have become a mathematics professor, more "safe")

Michael's bravery and self-sacrificing nature (joining the army, later protecting his father) are the first things about him that we are introduced to in the first film. Before we are introduced to his Sicilian blood that eventually "wins out" (thirst for vengeance, etc). And this basic nature does not change during the events in part two when he's obviously on a power trip. It's very interesting how he's basically two opposite things at the same time - selfish and controlling yet does not care if he risks his life for others.

In Vito's case... need to survive is one thing, need for vengeance is another. Just because you "don't have the heart" to harm your family members does not make it ok to feel no qualms about killing other people who get in your way. Murder is murder.
For me, the most ruthless murder scene out of all three movies was when Vito practically sliced Don Ciccio open. He doesn't have the heart to kill Carlo himself, but he has the heart to leave that particular task to his most precious son.
I guess I see Michael as a mental institution material in the end and Vito simply as a prison material.

But, well... in the end The Godfather is just a dark modernised fairy tale.

That's why I said above that they were both willing to murder anyone to get what they wanted. The fact that Vito seemed to want things that benefited others than himsef does nothing to mitigate his complicity.

Sinister, I agree with you in most aspects.

I think we see the burden earlier. It begins when his father gets shot. He realizes how bad things are being handled by his brothers. He sits frustrated on the bench outside the house. Also when they discuss whether to agree on Sollozzo's proposal and who is going to be killed, he sees that the ship has lost its captain and the navigators are no good. Look at the way he hangs up the phone after Clemenza says: "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes."

danito, I like your interpretation on the matter. I always find that lone scene of Michael sitting on the bench to show the fact that he is an outsider of the family and his isolation from the rest of the family's affairs. However, he definetly was thinking things over at this time and I really like what you came up with.

Welcome to the Boards, Sinister with your very well thought out analysis of Michael. Ditto for you Danito...the two of you are reinvigorating comments and observations that have been made in a very positive way, and I look forward to more from both of you.

One aspect of Michael's life that differs from his father's is that Michael starts his life with everything and he ends it with nothing.

With Vito, a refugee from his own country, put in an isolation ward for his first months in America we have someone who builds friendships, businesses (legal and not) a family, a circle of friends, associates, wealth and power.

The arc of Michael's life is exactly the opposite. He begins his life with everything, and systematically it all gets taken away. He must forsake Kay because he has to save the family by killiing Sollozzo. He loses his wife Appolonia to a car bomb intended for him. His older brother and the heir apparent to the family is killed. At the time of his father's death he is betrayed by one of his father's oldest friends, and he knows his brother in law set up his brother'd murder. He is later betrayed by his onbly surviving brother, and for a time is estranged from his sister.

Someone with this much in his life is bound to shut down and show no emotion whether he feels anything or not.