Tom was basically a good guy (relative to typical Mafia hoods) caught in an unscrupulous situation. His virtue was loyalty, but not to Michael; it was to Vito. Tom served Vito's son, he was Vito's adopted son, he was Michael's brother, and he was Vito's and Michael's partner in crime. Those bonds were almost impossible for Tom to break. By leaving Michael, he probably felt that he would be disloyal to Vito. His affair was probably to help relieve the stress of his moral conflict. His efforts (?) to find other employment were a muted attempt to resolve his moral conflict by removing himself from his environment. Of course, the vice-presidency of the hotels was also a cautious attempt since they were still part of the Corleone enterprises.

I think that Tom would betray Michael but never Vito, he stood that long with Mike was cause he would of betrayed Vito's memory if he betrayed Mike.

I think Tom intuited that Michael was going to kill Fredo and thats why he asked whether he had to kill "everybody."

Tom was Vito's son, not Michael's brother, but I don't think he'd ever be disloyal to Michael--even if fear were his motivation. Also, he may not have solicited an offer from the "House and Hotels"--they may have come to him without any come-on from Tom.

Some excellent threads going at the mo.

Tom Hagen is one of the most interesting characters there is. Lots of screentime yet so underdeveloped. We know he is loyal to Vito to the end. To the absolute end, he loves him. He also loves Sonny, and thats where Mike's resentment comes in. The bond between Sonny and Tom probably made him jealous. He doesn't see Tom as his real brother, and when he assumed power, the first thing he did was demote him. He accuses him of not being a wartime consiglieri, but if anything, his calm coolness prevented the war from being a lot lot worse.

In part II Mike tells Tom that he kept things from him because he loved and protected him, but then proceeds to go back on this later in the film and humiliating him in front of Rocco and Neri...this to a man that actually ran the family for a few months. I think Tom reminds him of the days when he, HIS brother and HIS father were close knit and he was the kid brother having this life planned out for him.

The flashback scene is key i think, Mike HATES the fact that this guy, an adopted Irish kid, is telling him that he and his father have plans for his future, for me, that scene explains Mike dropping one on Tom time and time again.

The key to the Michael/Tom relationship is that Michael was an obsessive controller. He didn't need a consigliere because only his decisions counted, only his choices mattered. Tom was Vito's choice for consigliere, not Michael's. Tom was Sonny's choice for brother, not Michael's.
What's more, Tom wasn't a wartime consigliere. He says so himself, in the novel. He blames himself for Sonny's death--"old Genco would have smelled a rat." Michael may have resented Tom for that, fairly or not.

But old Tom didn't take the phone-calls....old Tom really didn't know anything about it...and old Tom wouldn't have been physically able to stop a furious Sonny.

You're not wrong, THF. But Tom was a lawyer by training, not a Sicilian like Genco. As a lawyer, Tom would think logically about Carlo: he'd never betray Sonny because he'd be the prime suspect and would be wiped out immediately. End of story. Genco, as a Sicilian, would understand that after Sonny beat and humiliated Carlo, he'd thirst for revenge--and to hell with logic. I believe that when Tom thought to himself (in the novel) that "old Genco would have smelled a rat," he meant that Genco would have warned Sonny that Carlo would have to be watched very carefully for signs of revenge. If Sonny took that advice to heart and kept his temper in check, he might have seen that Carlo's second beating of Connie was intended as a death trap for him.

what it comes down to is - for the story to have been told the right way, it would have to had been told one of the following ways - mini-series style - had 2 extra 4 hour movies filmed closer together - and ffc should have ponied up the needed cash to have all the original actors in it either as deleted scenes or play out their roles to flesh put their parts. i didn't read the book, but what was rocco's background? since there was a survey asking who was better clemenza or pentageli, i think we should have a survey on rocco or neri. i think neri would have never been out smarted by rocco.

But could Genco have been Santino's consiglieri? Vito's yes, but Sonny's?

I'm not so sure.

What makes you believe this? I see no sign of jealousy in Michael, at least not in terms of brotherhood.

Mike wanted to be closer to Sonny, but Tom was always there. It made him resent them both.

I think that neither the film nor the novel show us that Michael was jealous.

The flashback scene at the end shows him to be a little resentful of Tom's presence.

If anything Michael was jealous of the bond between Tom and Vito. Michael was outraged when he learned that Tom and Vito had talked behind his back about his future, and he sat idly by after telling Tom he was not a wartime consigliere, and Vito contradicted him by saying that Tom was not a bad consigliere but that Sonny was a bad Don, and then sort of apologized for Michael's firing him by saying I have full faith in Michael as I do in you....

But also added that he advised Mike on his decision

Yes he did. But there's probably more to that decision than simply calling out Tom for his failings as a wartime consigliere:

Michael planned to move to Nevada well before Vito's death and Tessio's betrayal. "Legitimacy" was the most important thing to him. He needed Tom to be his "legitimate" front in Nevada, a lawyer not directly tainted by the planned massacre of the other Dons. Vito's death precipitated Barzini's immediate call for a sitdown, moving up the massacre schedule, and Michael needed Tom with him. Had Vito not died, Michael probably would have dispatched Tom to Nevada at least a year before he planned to carry out the massacre, in order to establish himself as a legitimate front for the Corleones and to distance himself from the massacre.

He claims legitimacy...but seven years...that SEVEN YEARS on, he's still forcing home casino licences, making deals with Hyman Roth and killing people. Why hasn't he bitten the bullet and welcomed Tom back to the fold in all that time? Why have Neri and Lampone grown ever powerful and Tom is now a mere lawyer?

And why did Vito think that Tom failed as a wartime consiglieri? Exactly why? He concedes that Sonny was a bad don...so Tom really isn't to blame is he? A consiglieri can only be as good as far as his Don is prepared to listen to him

(By the way, I disagree that Sonny was a bad Don, I worship the man)

Tom was portrayed as having died before the beginning of the story because Robert Duvall refused to take part due to a salary disagreement, that's all.

LOL...

Mike - Archbishop, this is Andrew, Tom's son...Pity about Duvall...I could have had him today instead of George Effing Hamilton

"When Hagen had entered the room Sonny had come rushing to embrace him. Michael realized with a faint twinge of jealousy that in many ways Sonny and Tom Hagen were closer than he himself could ever be to his own brother." - The Godfather, page 96.

Forgive me for bringing back such an old topic, but I've been reading the novel again (it seems like the 100th time) and I got the itch to return to this forum and discuss some of the finer details.

Oh, thank you very much!

Tom was loyal to a fault. However, he lamented the denouement of the Family as he knew it under Vito. To Tom, under Vito the Family had majesty; under Michael it had been reduced to a gang of thugs. Remember his remark to Frankie: "It once was". Yes, Tom was loyal to a fault.