Sonny and Fredo were so unlike their father in that regard while Michael, who was initially independent from the family, turned out to have the same family values as his father.

Here are some things I find interesting, though. Although Sonny was unfaithful, we didn't see him running around with a bunch of different women. There was only Lucy Mancini. Do you think Sonny really loved Lucy, or do you think she was just first in a line of what would have been subsequent mistresses (i.e., a "one-at-a-timer" as opposed to Fredo's "two-at-a-timing" )? I'm assuming that Vincent was born after Sonny's death (I'm sure the other experts here will correct me if that assumption is incorrect); but if Sonny had known about Vincent, do you think he would have acknowledged him as a son and have been a presence in the boy's life? Or do you think Lucy would have been on her own?

Now Fredo is another case. When Michael arrives in Las Vegas to negotiate with Moe Green, Fredo has a roomful of girls waiting for him. He knows that Michael is married to Kay, so why is he condoning adultery? Does he think it's a man's right, or does this stem from some kind of jealousy over Michael's stable family life that he wishes to "mess up"? And why didn't Fredo have children? I think he really didn't have a woman in his life who cared for him for who he was inside. Fredo didn't exude the self-confidence that makes a person attractive, so I think he made no secret of his money and connections in order to attract women. Unfortunately, the women who are drawn to such superficialities are seldom interested in being lifetime companions, "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer."

Then there's Michael. If Michael weren't in the mafia and had kept to his path of having an independent life unattached to the family business, I think he would have made an ideal husband and father. Well, maybe not totally "ideal" (which implies perfection); he did have some old-fashioned 1950s attitudes. Why this inordinate desire that his next child be a son? If Michael weren't in the mafia, do you think it would have been as important to him? And in GF3, why the emphasis on protecting Mary ("I would burn in hell to protect you") and controlling her romantic life? Does he consider daughters so fragile that they need chaperoning, that their honour is a reflection on the family? Or is he truly acting out of concern over her involvement with a crime boss like Vincent, knowing what Kay went through with him?

Any more opinions on any or all the brothers in this area? I look forward to reading them .

About Sonny, I think he just did what a lotta men would want: Serial monogamy (is this a correct expression in English )

Christina something I found very interesting that I was thinking about with the brothers. Sonny was obviously quite the lady's man (by the amount of seperation between Lucy Mancini's hands) and Fredo banged cocktail waitresses two at a time. But and I could be wrong we never hear anything about Micheal's sexual traits (except if we take into account Sonny saying "*ick in his handS and not hand" )

The novel implies that Sonny and Lucy had something of a real relationship, rather than the two quickies that we saw in GF (she tells Dr. Jules, "Sonny and I did everything together"). And yes, I believe that if Sonny had lived, he'd have acknowledged Vincent and tried to do right by him.
Fredo seemed to be the repressed type. The novel describes him as something of a "Pappa's boy," still living at home in this thirties, which may explain why he acted like the kid in the nookie jar when he was spirited off to Vegas.

I don't think Michael would have made anyone an ideal husband. He was too controlling, too self-possessed, too utterly absorbed in building an empire, to have shared any real emotional closeness. The reason we never see him playing around probably was that he had no interest in women--only power.

Novel implies he had.

I just think it was Michaels character to be a business first guy, i mean we know about sonny's affair and fredos but the focus on michael was how he would be as don, not his personal life.

My two cents: I believe that Sonny did have affairs, but probably did practice his version of faithfulness. Many mafia men had mistresses on the side, and I'm sure that Vito was the exception. And, yes, I'm sure that Sonny would have provided for Vincent, but I'm not sure he would've been welcomed into the family.

As for Fredo, I think that TB hit it right on the head. He was definitely kept close to his parents, and probably went a little overboard in Vegas. I think that the reason he never had children was that he was a child himself. How could he have handled the responsibility??

Michael was quite capable of being rather sensual - witness his relationship with Appollonia. However, his relationship with Kay was completely different. His marriage to her was based on the need for a wife and family and an air of legitimacy, although I believe he did love her very much.

Keep in mind that in the novel Connie asks Vito if he ever hit momma. He answers that she never gave him reason to do so. Think of that. So, I am not sure what kind of values we want to accrue to Vito for comparison with any of his sons.

Turnbull, I'm sure it probably goes in depth in the novel but do you think since Michael lost Appollonia because he allowed her to start the car that that made him more controlling with Kay or even just in general?

I always interpreted that remark in a context of sexual activity only - since it immediately follows Dr. Jules' mention of fellatio - with no implication of any other aspects of a real relationship other than sex.

Wasn't there a passage in the book where Puzo describes how Sonny would go over to Lucy's for a couple of days at a time, and she would cook for him while they both walked around naked or something?

I'm not sure, TB, what you mean by a "real" relationship. I don't think that they did anything much more than have sex, although I would certainly agree that there were more than the two occasions depicted in the film, and that there was probably at least some emotional attachment between the two.

If you're saying there was love between them, well, I'd guess that there was on her part, but I'm not sure about his.

As for Michael, I think when it came to women in general and sex in particular, he inherited his father's "straitlaced" views.

As he said to Fredo about the girls in his Las Vegas hotel suite:

"Get rid of them."

Fredo, I think, sought to cover up the inadequacies in other areas of his life through his sexual conquests - for example, cocktail waitresses two at a time, and marrying a movie star.

first of all, let me say that this is a very interesting topic, Cristina. I think women are given too little attention in the trilogy, mostly because the mafia enviromment itself was (and apparently still is) a men's thing and in this male oriented world women have basically nothing but a supporting role. Yet I think it would have been advisable to investigate more over men/women relationship: it would have added more depth to the characters and created more intriguing faceted psychologies. So, in my opinion, any occasion to discuss over this topic is highly welcomed.

well, we really should know more about his relationship with Lucy to discuss this. However, if we are to speculate, I think Sonny must have loved her his own way. She possibly was a bit of a "second wife" to him. Which doesn't mean he hadn't other affairs, of course. Sonny embodies a very typical kind of Mediteranean man, especially of the former days. Strong, passionate, hot blooded, arrogant, violent, generous, exuberant. I'm not sure what he would have done with Vincent, even if I tend to believe he would have arranged things in order to have him somehow accepted in the family. But let's keep in mind that back in 50s/60s things were different from now. Having an illegitimate child was not an easy thing to cope with.

Fredo is even more undecipherable IMO. He might as well have "two at one time" mistresses but I guess his behaviour was just meant to hide his inner lack of self confidence. He's so vulnerable inside. He just wants to let himself be considered equal to his brothers. So he tends to ham it up. Which will be, at least to a certain extent, his doom in the end.


I agree.

Probably yes. You told it yourself. Michael was a 1950s man and obviously had some old-fashioned 1950s attitudes. Even though I guess any man, any time, secretly wishes his child to be a son...

Michael wanted to protect Mary because he knew what she could risk. He lost his first wife because of him. His second wife was almost killed as well. His own mother suffered the loss of son.
It's a hard life to be a mafia woman!

Well Mike messed around two rember he was engaged to Kay and got married to that girl in Sicily.

Also someone said something bout Fredo not having a woman in his life he was married to that girl who seemed alot like Johnny Fontane's second wife from the book.

I never understood why it was so all-fired important for the baby in GFII to be a son. Michael and Kay already had a son, and who's to say they couldn't have had others afterward? Yet from the way Michael reacted when Tom told him about the "miscarriage," you'd have thought it was his last chance for a male heir.

DMC, I'm stretching here, but I think that being hit by the thunderbolt represented Michael having no control over things--he just got clobbered. And then Apollonia was murdered. Now, I know and you know that her death wasn't as a result of Michael not controlling his emotions and his environment. But her death took a lot out of him emotionally. He may have blamed himself, in part, because he was the target. So, after that, he became more controlling. While I think he loved Kay in his own (limited) way, he was using her as a stepping-stone to "respectability."
plaw: I meant what I said literally about Sonny and Lucy having "something" of a real relationship. The something could have been pure sexual attraction, but it was more than just an occasional quickie.

plawrence, I'm not singling you out, but I use your quote because it's the closest one in this topic to reflect what I've read while browsing posts from the past that mentioned this. They go something like this:
Now most of the opinions of that ilk were posted by men. I bet if you ask the women what they thought of Michael's being faithful to his wife and never fooling around on his many business trips they would have very different adjectives: romantic, family-oriented, committed, loving, ideal, caring.

To you guys (and you know who you are ), I have to ask this: Why do you infer that because Michael was exclusively faithful to his wife that this automatically makes him puritanical or inhibitied about sex? I think there is something extremely sexy, sensual, and romantic about a man who's engaged in a monogamous relationship with someone he deeply loves.

Didn't Michael sleep with Kay before they were married (in a deleted scene from GF1)? Wasn't Michael very sensual and tender with Apollonia on their wedding night? Look at the signs of caring and protectiveness toward Kay in GF2: the way he caresses her face on the pillow when he sees Anthony's drawing, the way he takes her hand and looks at her with family pride when Senator Geary mentions the celebraton of "a young man's [Anthony's] first communion," the way he holds her close when they're dancing.

And as for anyone who doesn't think Michael could have been (if his life circumstances had been different) an ideal husband and father, ask a woman and I'm sure you'll get a different opinion. If I had a handsome husband who, when welcomed at his hotel room by a roomful of beauties, says "Get rid of them" and only had eyes for me, THAT'S what I would call IDEAL.
I completely agree. These superficial connections allowed Fredo to avoid commitment. He didn't form an emotional bond with anyone (not even with his wife Deanna) the way Michael did with Kay (in terms of their building a life together and having a family).

Ironically, Fredo's way of life -- promiscuous, sexually liberated -- was actually very lonely and lacking in romance, bonding, love, caring (the better half of sex) compared to the "straitlaced" Michael, who I'm sure experienced more ecstasy in the bedroom because he was with his life's partner, someone he really loved.

And for me to have this opinion, of course, I believe that Michael truly loved Kay (I happen to think she was THE love of his life) and didn't marry her just to bear his children.

And that's my two cents; keep the change .

QUOTE: And as for anyone who doesn't think Michael could have been (if his life circumstances had been different) an ideal husband and father, ask a woman and I'm sure you'll get a different opinion. If I had a handsome husband who, when welcomed at his hotel room by a roomful of beauties, says "Get rid of them" and only had eyes for me, THAT'S what I would call IDEAL. END QUOTE


I'm sure a lot of women would agree with you, but not all of us. Personally, I'd want to know WHY he said "Get rid of them." If it was because he'd never dream of being unfaithful, great. If it was because he was too busy planning criminal business deals to take time out for hanky-panky, that's not so great. My ideal husband would be handsome, faithful, and, uh -- not a murderer.

Funny you should mention that Dona, because I was thinking of adding this sentence to the paragraph: "So you single gals, if you find a guy like that, grab him (just make sure he's not in the mafia)." But my post was already long enough .

As for your other point, I know more people are going to bring that up in ways like this: Michael was all business. He was too focused on wheeling and dealing and accumulating money to fool around and cheat on Kay.

Heh heh. You mean Michael didn't have time to fool around? Hey, if a guy wants to fool around, he'll MAKE TIME. I don't think it was a case of Michael not having time; I think he just didn't want to. He had a wife and family.

(But I see your point, Dona, about the Moe Green scene. When Michael said, "Get rid of them," he meant he wasn't there to have a light-hearted party the way Fredo set it up. The girls were a distraction from business. But I still believe that when business was done for the day, he would NOT be telling Fredo, "OK, you can get those girls now.")

Yes, Michael was very business oriented. And being the focussed person that he was, who put business before pleasure, he would never allow something like casual sex outside of marriage to cloud his judgement. It could distract him and make him vulnerable to his enemies. And he knew that. He was too smart to let his carnal desires get in the way of doing buisness and he chose instead to stay invulnerable in his world.

He knew that a man's uncontrolled sexual desires were a weakness that one's enemies could eventually use against him and cause downfall. He knew that very well. That is exactly how he broke Senator Geary, by taking advantage of a weakness that Geary had: Uncontrolable sexual desires and lust. Unfaithfullness. It was Geary's downfall and Michael used it to his advantage.

Michael was too smart to ever put himslef in a position of vulnerablility by playing around with woman and cheating on his wife. He would give anyone the opportunity to use it against him, the way that he used it against Geary.


Don Cardi

That's an interesting point you make, Cristina, about the different perceptions that men and women might have about Michael's faithfulness, etc.

I used the term "straitlaced" only because that was the one used in the book.

As I think further about Michael's attitude towards women, though, I would say that Appolonia was the true love of his life. It was her "thunderbolt" that hit him, after all.

Kay, I think, was a compromise.

When Michael returned home, he had to marry someone. He wasn't about to start hitting the singles bars, and there was no internet to meet women on.

He and Kay had a prior relationship, and I always got the feeling from their first meeting after Michael's return that he was feeding her a line of bullshit.

As far as the tenderness he displayed towards her goes, I always felt that there was some insincerity there as well. Like Kay was his baby machine, and he was just going through the motions, saying and doing the right things just to keep her happy.

His faithfulness, as depicted in the Vegas hotel suite scene, where he chose to forgo an evening of Fredo-style two-at-a-time fun, was, I think, more a function of his compartmentalized existence - he was there strictly for business, he was leaving in the morning, nothing was gonna get in his way - than any faithfulness he felt for his wife.

Good points by everyone.

Sonny was a promiscuous pig who basically used women as he wanted to. He was as reckless and careless in that department as he was with the rest of his life, telling strangers what he thought, flying off the handle, and the rest.

Fredo was overcompensating for his inadequacies by banging waitresses two at a time and marrying that horror show Deanna. He came to regret this in Havana when he told Mike he should have married someone like Kay.

Mike's true love was Apollonia, no doubt, and Kay was really as much as a beard as anything. She gave him the veneer of legitimicay, and produced heirs, which made Vito happy. He seemed to have no real use for women otherwise.

PLAW, one point....did they have singles bars when Mike got back from Sicily?

I was a bit young myself back then, but I'd suspect that singles bars have always been around.

Michael was hardly the "singles bar" type, though....

Now that is a very good point. Sicilian Babe said something like that in a long ago post about Michael's maintaining control and discipline. I remember the clever sentence she used: "Michael would not be caught with his pants down, figuratively or literally."

Because of your post, Don Cardi, I have to partially let go of my cherished belief that Michael never had affairs, casual or otherwise, because of love and fidelity. Now it turns out that it isn't ALL due to that. It was a fixture of his disciplined personality. He had an ulterior motive: to focus on the business at hand and maintain control.

But I don't think it displaces the importance of faithfulness or of being a soulmate to Michael. It's part and parcel of family, to which he seems to attach so much importance. I think of young Vito in the theatre with Genco. When Genco comments on the beauty of the girl in the play, Vito replies that for him, there is only his wife; and this was before Vito had any reputation as a mafia bigwig. Maybe (or so I like to think) some of this attitude rubbed off on Michael.

Then, in GF2, there is the scene where Michael checks on Anthony during the night. On that basis of their interaction, I think he aspired to be a family man like Vito. If Michael weren't rushing off to do business here and there and if he weren't so enmeshed in the criminal life, I think he had the potential to be a very good father (and husband). You can see his shortcomings (in terms of his absences, etc.) begin to trouble him when he returns home from Cuba and ponders the little red car sitting in the yard.

You also wrote that "Michael was very business oriented. And being the focussed person that he was, who put business before pleasure..." I see he didn't choose "business instead of pleasure." And I mention that because I think that a wealthy, powerful man in his position could have anything he wanted: If he wanted a mistress, he would have one. He would have it arranged so he would be in control: where she would be ensconced, when they would meet, etc. Heck, he would probably have his men check the perimeter of the house (or wherever) for spies and sweep every room for recording devices. It would be safer than meeting up with strangers in various hotels.

But we don't see any evidence of a mistress in the movie, so I'm going to guess that Michael, as well as being a controlled and guarded man, was also a faithful one. If Michael were still married to Apollonia, I can see him remaining faithful to her very easily. I think that's just the way he is.

That certainly goes to show that my argument that Michael was faithful for Kay's sake isn't very convincing unless the listener also believes that Michael truly loved Kay. And not everyone got a strong impression of that in the film the way I did.

But as far as Michael "settling" for Kay is concerned, I'd like to submit that the reason he was so reserved in his proposal to her is because he was tentative about giving his heart over to someone lest he lose that person again, the same way he lost Apollonia.
Well, what is a "thunderbolt" after all, but a hormonal phenomenon .

Seriously, I will concede that it's reasonable to believe that he loved BOTH women. I read this opinion on another film discussion board, so I am paraphrasing the writer. But he said that Michael, like most great characters in literature, film, etc., had a duality about him. Part of him was "old world" and loved Apollonia's youth and innocence; her old fashioned obedience; the way that he was her protector, provider, and teacher -- and also her authority figure.

But part of him was "new world," and I can see him wanting to share ideas with someone at his own level of education, and not a mere girl to whom he had to first teach English. He loved Kay's intelligence; her Americanism; her independent thinking; the things they had in common.

BTW, if Michael had been married to Apollonia and brought her to America, I don't think people would have any problem believing that he is faithful to her out of love... Or would there still be this attitude about Michael that he is only faithful to maintain control and not be caught in a weak moment?

To me, and of course this is only my opinion, Michael just did not seem like a man who was overly interested in women. Yes, I know about the thunderbolt but I said overly interested, as for instance Sonny was. Michael gives the impression to me of being very casual about sex. Not casual in the sense of having casual affairs, but casual in the sense that he can take it or leave it. I don't think his attitude toward sex was necessarily motivated by a desire to remain faithful to Kay, or even just by his famed self-control and dedication to business, though I do believe that last was a big part of it. I have a feeling that most of the time, he just couldn't be bothered.

What a waste...

An intriguing idea, Dona. I guess we have to remember that sex drives are an individual variation. Senator Geary was probably in the "high maintenance" range, since he was rather careless that he could get caught and become the subject of scandal.