It has been deader than disco around here lately and I just watched a very interesting program on the History Channel about Mafia involvement in Cuba during the 50s. One of the many thoughts I had while watching dealt with the dissimilarities between Michael and Vito's criminal empires. It's been discussed many times how Vito was loved and respected by those around him, while Michael was rarely loved and often feared more than respected. I don't pretend to be the first person to notice this theme demonstrated by the intertwining plots of Part II.

One thing I did notice was the way this was demonstrated by Michael's dealing in Havana. Cuba was going to be Michael's own enterprise, something totally separate from anything Vito had previously established. Of course, Cuba wasn't Michael's idea, but if his attempt on Roth had been successful he no doubt would have taken over control and made it his own. I never really appreciated it until I saw this program, but the way the Cuba thing collapses around Michael was very well portrayed by FFC.

I know this plotline was based on real events, so Batista had to abdicate on New Year's Eve, but I still think it proved effective at providing another avenue to demonstrate Michael's inability to fill his father's shoes. Vito padded his own pockets at the expense of others while still maintaining their respect and admiration. In reality, Vito took advantage of his fellow Italian-Americans, but made sure they never realized it. Michael, Roth, and Batista totally separated themselves from Cuba's citizens, basically saying the hell with everyone else, we're making money and the people grew resentful, leading to Castro's eventual takeover and the end of their plans.

For a second, I thought this would be a Jackson Five thread.

Darn.

I guess Michael v. Tito will have to wait another day.

"DY-NO-MITE,"
Double-J

Great one DJ. I think that would have made for a more compelling GFIII storyline.

I think a big difference between Michael and Vito was how they dealt with people, or how they persuaded someone. Look at Vito with Woltz, and Michael with Senator Geary, on one hand we have Vito who probably gave the order for someone to kill the horse and put the head in the bed, but on the other hand we have michael, who I have no doubt gave the order for that girl to be killed, and to make geary believe he did it.

I believe that the main difference between Vito and Michael was how they approached the all-important issue of "respectability" and "legitimacy." Vito lived Old World Sicilian values. Immigrant and first generation Sicilians deeply distrusted government and other official sources of authority. They looked to strong Mafia types like Vito to protect them and keep order in their world. They accepted and revered him for keeping order and providing "justice," even at the cost of exploiting them. He derived his "legitimacy" from that. While Vito was all-powerful in the Mafia, he was, compared with Michael, a big fish in a relatively small pond.
Michael was a thoroughly modern Don. He yearned for "legitimacy" on American terms--he wanted to be regarded as a pillar of the community, a legitimate businessman, the equal of any pezzanovanti in executive suites, the government, etc. He didn't much care how average people felt about him.
The key to Michael's attitude is found in the scene when, after returning from Sicily, he woos Kay in New Hampshire. He tells her his father is "no different than any man who's responsible for others." She replies that Senators and Governors don't have people killed. "Now who's being naive, Kay?" Michael replies. What he's saying is, "If politicians can lie, cheat, take bribes, profit from public office--and order people to their deaths--and still be considered respectable, why shouldn't I consider myself respectable?" In other words: rather than really going straight, he wants to bend the rules of "respectability" to fit him. This is a conflict he never resolved in his lifetime. Vito, by contrast, accepted his lot and was content with what he was.

TB as usual you are on the money here, but I would add a bit more.

Vito rose to power by doing people favors and then askeing for favors in return. No favor was too small. His mentality, which we see at the beginning of GF I is someone as lowly as Bonasera can come and ask for a favor, but only in the context of a friend...."When was the last time you invited me to your home for a cup of coffee?" Michael on the other hand was more like corporate America...bloodless and cold. I really do not think Vito would have employed some of Michael's tactics, nor would he have shared his outlook on many things.

DT, I agree that Michael lacked his father's warmth. However, we do see a touch of it in the deleted scene from GF2, when Michael meets with Sonny's daughter and blesses her engagement. Very sweet and protective.

There is also the difference between how Vito and Michael handled family situations. This has been discussed before, but Vito would have probably not have killed Fredo if Fredo betrayed the family like he did in GFII. Since Fredo was family, Vito would have mostly likely given him a pass.

Michael was cold towards his family as shown in GFII. I would imagine Vito was a family man and that was how his family stayed together. Vito seems as if he always managed to spend as much time with his family as possible. As the poster above mentioned, Vito had warmth while Michael seemed cold most of the time towards not only his family, but those he did business with. This was probably why Michael was feared and Vito was loved.