In one of the very first scenes of the "Michael" part of Part II, Senator Pat Geary is introduced as a guest at the party being held to celebrate Anthony's first communion. The idea of a U.S. senator being a "distinguished guest" at a Mafia celebration is highly intriguing and titillating. But how realistic is it? By this time, it was widely known that many politicians were connected to organized crime. Additionally, Nevada was clearly exceptionally tolerant of "vices," having legalized gambling. But even so, would a U.S. senator--even one from Nevada--have publicly appeared at a party given by a known Mafia leader? Isn't it more likely that he would have simply met with Michael and the others in private at another time? And even if he came, would he have had his attendance be announced to the crowd like that?

There is some directorial license. But on the other hand this is theoretically before anything like the Appalachin incident or Valachi hearings. IRL certain mob bosses/fixers like Costello, Lucchese or Humphreys did occasionally move in the same social circles as top local politicos.

Geary was supposed to be based in part on Senators McCarran/Laxalt, who did have some interesting alleged connections with shady people over the years , though it was likely mostly done via cut-outs.

"From now on you deal with Turnbull"...

Prior to 1957, Appalachin, FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, never publicly addressed a "mafia", "la cosa nostra" or "organized crime" faction the United States. The FBI went after the renegade/solo gangster/criminals; Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, etc...But after Appalachin,the government (Hoover) had no choice but to admit that the American version of the Sicilian mafia indeed existed throughout North America. Politicians back then, as well as today, chased a check at any cost. It's not so surprising that Senator Geary publicly did & said what he had to in order to get that check from Michael Corleone. Geary was all smiles and compliments in public but his real feelings towards Michael and his whole "#%&*ing family" were evident in the private meeting about the gaming license. My point is that after November of 1957, Appalachin, there is no way a public official would attend a private social gathering like "Anthony V-eye-toe Carlayoney's" communion party - no matter how big the check was. That's what he had Turnbull for...and we have our Turnbull here on the board to help explain in better and more accurate detail what I have rambled on about. TB, help me out...am I close to being accurate?

The party clearly takes place in 1958 (we're told this by the date on the screen). If you're correct, then it couldn't have happened in that year in real life--although it possibly could have before November 1957.

Perhaps "Appalachin" had not happened in the GF series yet? I'm not sure, Vito C. There are a ton of people on the board with more knowledge of the GF fictional book/movie timelines. However, I think it is safe to say that after the late 1950's, any politician's dealings with mafia figures were kept VERY secretive and trusted to only a very few inner circle people. A prime example is the the Kennedy's "deal" with Chicao Outfit boss, Sam Giancana, to assist JFK's electionas President. Of course it eventually leaked out but nowadays every politician knows that having your name linked to any facet of organized crime is political and personal suicide...just ask the former mayors of Cicero & Rosemont, Illinois.

As TB stated, there is an element of directorial license in use here such as FCC employed throughout the Trilogy. I for one always wondered how a family with upwards of 1,000 guns could be managed by just two capos.

Not possible, Oli.

I don't think that was as much directorial license as it was an outright mistake on Puzo's part. I mean, by the time Puzo did his research for the novel (I believe he started in 1965), Joe Valachi had already layed out the structure of the families.

Don't forget Sonny's regime...that makes 3 capos?

To make an analogy, Mark. At Gotti's peak, with roughly 400 soldiers, the Gambinos had 24 capos. So 2 or 3, not really a big difference.

Wow. That means roughly 15 - 17 soldiers in each Gambino crew. You guys are right, Puzo made a big boo-boo on the capos part of the story.

As Tom states in the novel "You have Clemenza and Tessio here and they can muster a thousand men ..."

As Lilo said..."There is some directorial license"

A communion is not a "mafia celebration." But I understand that you're questioning why a senator would publically partake in a celebration thrown by a mafioso like Michael Corleone.

Lets go back to the first GF movie. It opens with the wedding celebration for the daughter of one of the most powerful mob bosses in the USA. We hear Tom Hagen telling Don Vito that :

"Senator Cauly apologized for not coming personally -- he said you'd understand. Also, some of the judges. They've all sent gifts."

Don Vito invited these men of political stature to his daughter's wedding and we can assume that they respectfully declined because they could not risk partaking in a celebration thrown by one of the most well known Mafiosos in the country.

And that was all Vito really was, the boss of bosses in New York, the most powerful mobster perhaps in the country. A mobster, mafioso, a gangster.

Now years later, his son Michael, after moving his family out west, cuts ties, at least openly, with the "old timers," the mobsters back east. He slowly attempts to establish himself as a distingushed businessman who has broken all ties with illegal enterprises and has legitimized himself with investments in legitimate corporations and LEGALIZED gambling, hotels and casinos.

In GF1 we see Santino spitting at FBI men and breaking cameras outside the gates of the compound where Michael's sister's wedding is being held.

In GFII we see waiters carrying trays with food and drinks to law enforcement officials stationed outside the compound where Michael's son's communion is being held.


Unlike his father, Michael created this facade, one that now portrayed him as this distinguished business man who lived "high in the sierra mountains" drinking "champagne cocktails" instead of a gangster, a mob boss, who drank homemade wine out of jugs. Michael had flamingo dancers and the Sierra Boys Choir as entertainment at his parties instead of people dancing the tarantella and old italian men singing C'è la luna.

So this facade that Michael Corleone created must have made it seem ok for politicians, like senator Geary, to openly appear with 'distinguished businessmen' like Michael Corleone as opposed to openly appearing with known mafia hoods like Vito Corleone.

The only real difference between Michael and Vito is that Michael created this facade, this false image of being this 'all american clean cut business man' and Vito didn't.

Deep down they were really one and the same......both "common mafia hoods."

Well said Don Cardi. I totally agree with you.

I think you're mistaken with the reign of Carlo Gambino. Under Gotti the family was in decline and shrank to less than 200 soldiers.

That's what always makes me wonder too. In the novel and film (deleted scene) Sonny asks Tessio to recruit 50 men for him. So we are suppose to believe that they had up to 50 men in their regime. And at one point we hear Sonny say (also in the novel) that they have 100 button men on the streets. So I'm wondering how much made men the Corleone family had?

Good to see Don Cardi back even for a fleeting moment..."Who can refuse the reasoning of Don Cardi?"

I think it was not unrealistic for Geary to appear at that party:

He was one of thousands of guests, probably including, as DC said, many prominent businessmen and politicians. He was also there to accept a "magnificent gift" on behalf of the state university. If it was ok for the university's board of trustees to take money from Michael Corleone, there was no harm in Geary's accepting it on their behalf--and getting himself a nice photo op and personal plug. Note, too, that Geary deliberately mispronounces Anthony's name--obviously trying to reinforce that he's not personally familiar or chummy with the Cor-lee-ons (and reinforcing the sarcasm of his perfect pronunciation of the name later, when he's putting the screws to Michael).

Then, as now, money washes away sins--and Michael knew it. The Robber Barons in their lifetimes (and certainly in their children's lifetimes) legitimized themselves by forming charitable foundations and trusts, building universities, hospitals, libraries, etc. The cleansing effect comes from making charity public. Bugsy Siegel simply bribed Pat McCarren to get access to scarce building materials for his Flamingo Hotel during wartime. But Moe Dalitz, the real builder of modern Vegas, financed and ran McCarren's re-election campaign; built a religious school (that still carries his name) for the city's oldest synagogue, and built a hospital. He was named "Man of the Year" in the early Seventies.

TB, I just don't see the upside for Geary while there was plenty of potential downside. The country is just beginning to learn about the Mafia in America and Appalachin has just happenend or is on the horizon. Geary couldn't know what lay ahead for a Mafia Don. Senate hearings and indictments? They all did, in fact, happen. Why take a chance? Turnball gets indicted, turns state's evidence. Then what? All roads lead back to Michael and Geary.

Geary's main purpose in coming to the party was to shake Michael down re. the Tropigala license. It'd be far safer for him to meet at a big public event rather than to arrange a meeting in his (Geary's) office.

Still TB, he could have easily conveyed that shakedown through Turnbull. In fact, wasn't Geary rather upset that he had been contacted directly by Tom (I guess) and thus told Mike to next time deal with Turnbull.

It's possible that, strictly in the sense of the story(again, directorial license), the viewer must see Geary personally attempting to belittle, show up, and tell off Michael; thus making his later appearances at the brothel, in Cuba, and at the hearings far more effective then if he had sent a message via third party. Also, of course as TB and DC stated it is far more acceptable to meet just this once at not only a big public event, but the celebration of 'a yound boy's First Communion' at which a huge check is presented, rather than to expect Michael and/or his men to meet him 'on HIS territory'.

In real life would a U.S. Senator have showed up at all? Possibly not ... but what makes sense in real life does not necessarily make an entertaining movie.

Apple

I always thought the 1000 men thing was probably a bit of boasting but not a lot. Perhaps it indicated the Corleone Family at "flex" or "all hands on deck" strength-every last button man, every single associate who was considered a future prospect, every allied mercenary, etc.

If Puzo really did mean that the Corleone Family was 1000 men strong, then I would suggest that whatever they're called, Clemenza and Tessio are really more like underbosses or partners of Vito's and they they in turn have certain subordinates who , whatever they're called , actually fulfill the duties of a caporegime.

No, early in the novel, Puzo explains the hierarchy of a family and Tessio and Clemenza, in their family capacity, are never referred to as anything except capos.

Absolutely. I am suggesting that Puzo got that wrong-at least given what we know about how organized crime families really work. For example IRL, Luciano's closest Italian associates in the crime family he set up were Adonis, Costello and Genovese. Most of his orders and/or socializing seem to have gone through them. But there were many other capos who seemed to be running their own crews, whether or not they reported to the three men mentioned or to Luciano directly. I think that if Puzo were writing about what we know as the Genovese Family he may have held that it only had three capos..

I think the main reason for having just two capos is to keep it plain and simple. My guess is that Puzo thought that it may become confusing for the reader if he created too much characters. But it would be more realistisc if Puzo created 4-5 capos. The real life Chicago Outfit also has/had more than 200 made men under just 5 capos so it is possible.

I agree that having two capos keeps it simple for the viewers. It also enabled FFC and Puzo to develop their characters, and to contrast Clem's loyalty with Tess's treason at the end.

In real life, a Don like Vito would have prefered fewer, rather than more, capos under him. Trust was most important to Vito. It'd be easier to trust two capos than multiple capos--and to keep the multiples from conspiring against him. The novel points out that Vito kept Clem on a tight leash at the Mall, but let Tessio operate almost independently--the better to mask his real strength from his enemies, but also to keep Clem and Tess from conspiring.

When you don't know you who can trust it's almost like pick your poison.

If there are just two capos it's easier to keep an eye on them but on the other hand either of them has roughly half the Family's street strength.

If you have multiple capos it's not as easy to always know what they might be up to but then again, if one of them should go bad, they have a much smaller power base with which to oppose you.

I'm rereading the GF for about the 100th time and I just noticed (or just remembered) that when Vito dies, Puzo refers to the Tessio and Clemenza "families" sending their representatives to Vito's funeral. That is a major faux pas. Why couldn't he be more consistent?

One of many inconsistencies, Olli. At Connie's wedding, Vito is described as looking so handsome in his tuxedo that he could have been mistaken for the bridegroom. Later that day, at the hospital, Dr. Kennedy notes "the man in an ill-fitting tuxedo." Maybe Vito ate too much at the wedding...

...Or Dr. Kennedy moonlighted as a fashion expert.