You don't get to be head of a Mafia Family by being a nice guy but compared to Michael how ruthless was Vito?

Vito is unable to order the death of his son-in-law though it is apparently obvious to a hysterical Connie that everyone blamed Carlo.

Later, Michael has no problem either ordering or countenancing the murder of a prostitute simply to get leverage over Geary. Could Vito have done that?

If Vito hadn't passed on when he did, how much longer would Carlo have gotten a pass? Plainly Vito knew Carlo would have to go. Would Michael have felt constrained from handling Carlo as long as Vito was alive just to spare Vito's feelings?

I think that the movie doesn't go into enough detail on Vito's rise to give us the depth of his ruthlessness. While it's said in the novel that Sonny made up for what Vito lacked in that area, I also remember reading that Tom was surprised to find out that Johnny Fontaine was screwed by some records piracy that Vito was involved in. He had no problem doing that to his godson, so what else was he capable of??

Yes I agree, Vito knew Carlo had to go. But I also think even Vito knew his time was running out. You can tell this when he steps down and makes Michael head Don. Vito even mentions that hes drinking more wine! lol. Its little hints such as those that make you wonder.

But hey! Thats just my theory.

That's true, Lilo. But Vito also knew that Michael would deal with Carlo upon Vito's death. He had to fully expect and even support that. He just didn't have the stomach to see his daughter endure the pain of being a widow. But I'm sure he was still in favor of Carlo getting what was coming to him . If you believe in revenge (which Vito did), killing Carlo was a no brainer.

While Vito did not 'order' the killing of Carlo (perhaps in part not wishing to make his only daughter a widow...NAAAHHHH), Vito was perfectly willing to allow Michael to have it done, along , it's a pretty fair assumption that he had no problem with it happening...

There was no hurry to do away with Carlo as long as he was kept under tight reigns after the 'peace' was made that allowed Michael's return. To have him alone done away with prior to the 'baptism day massacre' would've immediately arouses suspicion among the other Families, particularly Barzini.

Anyway it was imperative to get Carlo to admit to his part in Sonny's murder...something he might never have done prior to Vito's death and the settling of all 'Family Business'.

Apple

Vito's hands were tied as it relates to Carlo. He took an oath not to do anything to start another war, so if he killed Carlo it would be an indirect attack on the Barzini family.
Vito and Michael meticulously planned what had to happen in the upcoming war (first order of business, build a secret regime under Neri and send Tom to Vegas).

This was always to be Michael's war, so Vito left it to him.
When Michael has had all the heads of the families killed it is then he approaches Carlo and informs him TODAY I SETTLE ALL FAMILY BUSINESS.

I have no doubt Vito in his day would have been ruthles enough to kill Carlo, son in law or not. This is the guy who shot Fanucci in the mouth one time to many, just in case he wasn't dead, and then casually relieved the corpse of a wallet and all his money, in order to take power with the backing of Clemenza and Tessio (who paid him $50 each). This is also the guy who invited that landlord to ask around about him. Once the poor landlord did, he was terrified to so much as sit down in his office. Obviously he had heard some scary stories.

By the end, even Michael - hardly a sensitive fellow - admitted that he couldn't "do it any more."

I don't think that we can infer, however much Vito may have mellowed by the end, that he was anything less than the single most ruthless person in his time and place. How else could he have risen so far?

This is definitely true. Not to mention, this is the same guy who gutted Don Tommasino to avenge the murder of his family. Don Vito is a tough fellow and also one who never goes back on his word.

Lots of good points made, especially about not wanting to tip off Barzini by getting rid of Carlo too soon.

But if Vito had lived another five years, would Carlo have done so as well?

And given Vito's low opinion about men that made their living off of women, would he have assented to murdering a woman just to get one up on Geary?

I dont think Vito would, IMHO.

Doesn't really matter. Vito was in no rush to have Carlo die ... remember his strong belief that revenge is a dish best served cold.

Sure he would have.

Don't get all misty eyed when thinking about how high and mighty Vito was. He was a thug, albeit a smart one. His Family did well in business and they didn't need to resort to being pimps to earn their living BUT if they did (and became pimps) that wouldn't have mattered to Vito... he was earning a living for his Family.

True that.
But there again Vito refused to murder the attackers of Bonasera's daughter, was seemingly against drugs not only for pragmatic reasons (he wrongly thought it would jeopardize his business) but moral ones (he called it a dirty business), and was quite contemptuous of Tattaglia's primary business.

I'm not saying Vito wasn't cold, cruel and evil. Just that Michael was (or became) even more so.

I don't think that's true, given that many agree that anything Michael did, a younger Vito would probably have done as well. Including, IMO, having his traitorous brother murdered.)

I guess we can dismiss that bandleader story...but what 'cold, cruel and evil' act of Michael's can equal being prepared to blow a guys brains out for simply refusing to let your godson out of a contract?

What Michael lacked ... or perhaps had once had but lost ... was an 'old world' warmth. But he was no more cold a businessman than his father had been.

By the way...consensus is that Michael didn't order the murder of that prostitute. That may have all be orchestrated by Tom.

Apple

I don't think Vito would have had a close relative murdered.
Vito refused to make his living exploiting women. Of course he did things that were just as bad but this showed he had some restraints.

Although his initial refusal to invest in drugs was primarily a business decision I think it's clear that there was some moral disdain there as well.

I used to think that Tom did the prostitute murder all by himself but the more I think about it the more I think that Michael set it up and gave the go-ahead.

Michael was a complete control freak. I can't imagine anything as big as setting up Geary taking place without his knowledge and consent.

There is no way to know that for certain, because Vito never had to experience the betrayal of a close relative. Like a jealous older brother, for instance. A betrayal that would have put not only his own life in danger but also the existence of the entire empire.

We tend to give Vito much credit as the 'kindly old man' and in GFII, dashing young Don. He really did not go through the type of transformation that Michael eventually did. He was a 'control freak' as well. This is so evident in how he chose to handle the killing of Fanucci; right from the dinner at which he tells Clemenza & Tessio that he'll 'take care of everything'...to the shadowing on the rooftops to the shooting (and raiding of the wallet) itself.

How ruthless was Vito? Pretty ruthless.

1. The fact is Vito died before Carlo, but he and Michael had planned every detail of what was to be done, and there is no question that Carlo's fate was sealed before Vito died. I can almost hear Vito telling Michael for the umpteenth time: "Now remember you cannot touch Carlo until you are certain Barzini and the others are already dead."

2. He would have considered the prostitute in Nevada to be collateral damage just as the prositute who died in bed with Tattaglia was. Vito's and Michael's opinion was
echoed by Hagen when he explained to the Senator that "this girl" had no identity, no family and it will be as if she never existed

I'm not so sure we can be certain that Vito discussed the Carlo problem with Michael. Vito knew that Michael knew what a thread Carlo was.
On the other hand: Michael had put Carlo a little too close. Carlo should have smelled the rat when he heard he was going to be Michael's right hand man in Vegas, while Hagen was out. Carlo's little modest vain nod when he hears about his promotion is unforgettable.

I think It's because Vito was originally from Sicily, and Sicilians believe strongly in family, even though Carlo beat on his daughter. That's most likely why he didn't want anything happening to Carlo. Michael was an Americanized Sicilian. That's just my guess. I think Vito wanted to also be 100% sure that Vito double crossed the fam.

Other than the horse and Fanucci, the films didn't show us much of Vito's ruthlessness. But the novel did--attest the murder of the Capone gunmen. I don't see any substantive difference between Vito and Michael in the ruthlessness department: it comes with striving to be a Mafia pezzanovante.

As for Carlo, in a deleted scene, Vito admits to Michael that his failure to act on Sonny's and Appolonia's murders were "weaknesses." But there were pragmatic reasons for not whacking Carlo. As has been pointed out here, it would have signaled Barzini and the others that the Corleones knew who set up Sonny--and who was behind it. That would have been fatal to the Great Massacre of 1955. Another: if Michael had had Carlo whacked before Vito died, Connie would have gone running to her father, driving a wedge between Vito and Michael and undermining Michael's authority.

Carlo never smelled the rat because he actually believed he was Capo Regime Material when in fact he was nothing more than a philandering, wife beating moron.

Carlo was a tool......

Lots of interesting responses.

Not that it would have helped much in escaping but I always thought that Carlo's delusions of grandeur were only matched by his utter stupidity in not getting out of town shortly after Sonny met his end. Certainly living next door to murderous people who never forgive or forget doesn't seem too wise...

But on the ruthless thing I go back and forth. I've been rereading a lot of the Silmarillion lately and Vito and Michael still seem to me to have slightly different fatal flaws-just like Melkor and Sauron.

Vito and Michael were both evil, no doubt about that and who would claim otherwise?

But in Vito's case at least his Pride and Wrath were also tempered by loyalty to friends and family, honestly caring about people within his circle of trust, and living by a certain code of personal conduct , which although harsh and self-serving still had a twisted sort of fairness to it.

Do we ever see any hint that Michael cares about anyone outside of himself? He uses Tom like toilet paper and doesn't care about being more obvious about this as the film progresses. If Michael had been less self-absorbed, perhaps he would have picked up on Fredo's discontent or Kay's issues.

Does Michael have any friends, people that either aren't afraid of him or that are outside of the criminal realm? Vito honestly likes Nazorine and does a favor for him that probably ends up saving his life. Michael has no people like that and doesn't seem to want them either. Michael appears to be much more "What can you do for me right now".

I think Michael was also envious of the straight life he could have had so in a way this made him less forgiving and more ruthless than Vito was. Vito was more at peace with who he was and what he did than Michael was I think.

It's certainly true that Vito never had to deal with betrayal by blood but I can imagine him saying "I would not live my life so that that would have been possible".

Good discussion.

Well, I do recall a passage in the novel stating that after Sonny's death Carlo suddenly became a doting husband to Connie and in general behaved himself. That behavior would make slightly more sense than bolting and bringing unwanted attention to oneself.



To repeat an earlier post...while equal in ruthlessness as it served 'The Business'...it can be argued that Michael did lack a depth that Vito possessed, that gift of (dare I say it again)...old world warmth, and yes, loyalty.



Michael cared about protecting his 'Family' as a whole. And he did it well. Unfortunately it is at the expense of individuals in his own, personal 'family'. This again is where he is in deep contrast with Vito.

While we have talked about the character flaws of Vito and Michael, perhaps we have overlooked one thing. Vito saw first hand, as a child what happened when the Mafia was crossed. He witnessed his mother die, and was shipped to the U.S. where he had to learn a new language and a new culture. When he got fired from the grocery because Fanucci forced Genco Sr. to hire his nephew, Vito understood he was going nowhere in the world unless he chose the life he lived. He was already mixed up with Clemenza and Tessio selling stolen clothing, stealing rugs, etc., and when confronted by Fanucci he understood he had to take Fanucci out and run his own "business." Later in his life he told Michael he had no regrets because he did not want to be some kind of puppet manipulated bu others. Throughout his life Vito probably believed this rationale, and that allowed him to have a good marriage, to love his children, to maintain friendships, and to show respect for others.
Michael was totally different. He grew up affluent. HE went to an Ivy League school, and while he was certainly happy to live in that lifestyle, he was also a rebel who joined the army and took pleasure in telling his father he would never work for him, nor be a man like him.

Then after Vito was shot and Michael saw that it was necessary for him to become involved in the family busines, he did so with a vengence. Its kind of like someone who converts from one religion to another...people like that are probably a bit more zealous than those born into it.

So for Michael being the Don had nothing to do with trading favors, showing respect for others, or even loving his family (clearly the only reason he took his kids away from Kay had nothing to do with his caring about them, but instead it was a way to get back at her for "leaving" him).

A good example of the difference is een in the treatment of Johnnie Fontaine. To Vito he was a beloved godson who he could help, but who he could also reprimand, and give advice. To Michael Johnny was just a cash cow. In GF III Michael doesn't even give Johnny the courtesy of litening to his song, but instead humiliates him by making a reference to Tony Bennett and leaving the room. Vito would have never done a thing like that because such rudeness, to Vito, was an infamnia.

I think at the end of the day, they both were equally as ruthless, but the film obviously is about Michael's life. So naturally, since there's more screen time of him throughout the entire trilogy, you get a sense that "we've been with him the whole time...his entire life."

So while we've seen dashes of Don Vito's ruthlessness, I dont take that to mean "he wasn't as" ruthless as Michael. Plus, remember-we're talking about BOSSES here, not capos, not soldiers, who(in my estimation or ignorance here wouldn't have as much to worry about like a boss would.

Perhaps Vito was to some degree as manipulative as Michael when he manipulates him into taking over the olive oil business. And Michael inherits all the mess and unpayed checks - the Barzini coup, killing Carlo, etc.
After Michael had come back from Sicily, he wanted to do everything right (= right in the eyes of his father). And that's what he promised his father: "I can handle it."
Michael is honest to his mother and maybe she's one person he's not trying to manipulate. He asks her: "But by being strong for his family could he [Vito] lose it?" Of course, he's talking about himself. He's trying so hard to protect his family but on his way his heart became cold. He couldn't really love his family anymore, so he lost it.

"Vito and Michael were both evil, no doubt about that and who would claim otherwise?"

Actually, I don't think they were evil, particularly Vito. Charles Manson--yes. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy--yes. Mrs. Iselin (Angela Lansbury's character in the first "Manchurian Candidate" movie)--yes. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney--yes. But Vito and Michael--no.

Both men were engaged in methods of earning income (extortion, racketeering etc.) that are at best quite shady. Yet there are legal ways of making a living that are equally questionable, if not more so. Is forcing businesses to pay protection money really worse than denying people healthcare coverage? In Part II, either Michael or Tom has a prostitute killed to retaliate against a corrupt, bigoted senator. While the senator definitely deserved retaliation, the prostitute hadn't done anything on her part to deserve to be killed. But even this isn't nearly as bad as invading a country without any provocation and getting tens, if not hundreds of thousands of equally innocent people killed to avenge your father (Bush's animosity toward Saddam appears to have been driven by Saddam's assassination attempt on his father in 1993).

I actually admire Vito tremendously, he's one of my two favorite movie characters (the other is Indiana Jones). The reason is because Vito has an incredible combination of toughness, muscle and ruthlessness on the one hand, and compassion and wisdom on the other. This is rare in someone in a position of power. Combined with his incredible "rags to riches" story, it makes him a highly appealing character.

Michael lacked Vito's sense of fairness. Vito IMHO genuinely liked and loved people, Michael did not. In many ways Michael is a more one dimensional person than Vito.