I made this post in another thread, but it was kind of off topic in that particular discussion; so I decided to copy it over to its own place.

I was giving my opinion about Mama Corleone. Was she a strong matriarch? Was she a compassionate mother, and a wise woman? Was she the one (or one of the few) admirable person in a family of criminals?

I concluded that she was not particularly strong, compassionate or wise. My opinion is based on what I saw in the movie and not on the book, so here's what I think from that viewpoint:

Mama Corleone was an inhabitant of her own little domestic universe wherein she turned a blind eye to the criminal activities around her (not strong, IMO), believed in non-interference when her daughter was being abused by her husband (not compassionate), and didn't have a clue what Michael was talking about when he came to her with his anxieties about losing his family (not wise).

Yes, Mama raised four children lovingly, no doubt, and possessed a commendable sense of responsibility even for her grandchildren (as seen in GF2 when she scolds Connie for being an absentee mother to her two young sons). But a great many mothers are like this. It is Mama's unquestioning acceptance of the riches of crime and her utter subservience and dependence that don't make her particularly admirable to me.

But even more than that, one particular scene shows me that she exhibits some sort of unwillingness to open her eyes and at least admit what's going on to herself. It's at the end of GF1, where she is heard arguing over an hysterical Connie in the limo outside the compound. I think I hear her say, "Connie, you're wrong," trying o persuade her daughter that Michael didn't have Carlo killed. Mama, wake up -- your son's a mafia don. Why did she think Michael was out of the country for over a year? Didn't she know he killed two people by his own hand?

What do others think of Mama?

Cristina,

I think that the reason you are feeling this way about Mama Corleone is because you are thinking in the now, the present. It is unacceptable in our society today for a wife, mother, etc. to sit back and remain silent about her husbands illegal activities, the abuse by a son in law of her daughter, etc. But you need to remember that back in the era that The Godfather movie is taking place, it was not uncommon (especially with an Italian wife who came over from Italy) for a wife to remain silent about these kinds of things. Not that I agree that a wife or a mother should have remained silent, but that was how it was back then. So in my opinion, Morganna King along with FFC portrayed the "Italian wife" perfectly for that era. Back then no italian woman would dare interfere with her husbands activities or with the marriage of one of her children. It was wrong, no doubt. But that is exactly the way it was and Morganna King did a great job in portraying the typical italian wife of that era.

By the time GFII rolls around, times have supposedly changed, woman became more modernized, and FFC again brilliantly portrays the small detail of the change of the era by now having Mama speak out a little bit more about the well being of her grandchildren and her daughter.


Don Cardi

I think she must have had the same justifications as vito for the criminal activities he was doing. She too saw him loose the job (though in the movie he does not reveal it to her, she would have known it sooner or later) due to Fanucci. Raising 3/4 children in poverty is tough. So I would say she was smart.
Regarding the Connie scenario, it was not that she was not compassionate, but I guess it was the social norm for mothers to not interfere in their daugter's affairs once she is married (i.e., the husband "takes charge").
I agree with your final comment that she was not wise. She had no idea what michael was talking about.

Ahem-ahem. It's me again.
Related topics:

What did mama Corleone know?

Mama Corleone is sassy

Cristina,
Mama Corleone, reminds me so much of my Grandmother she was in her own little domestic world too!
She was a Child married to a (Man)- both from Italy!
My Mother remembers her words.....I do & say what i am told...she knew what was expected of her or else!She knew when to turn a blind eye too! my Grandfather was all she had - Sad to say!
I agree with Don, back in the day that is how it was!

I agree with everything you said (but not so much the part about my applying modern standards to Mama, which I'll get to shortly ). That certainly was the tenor of the times, and Mama was portrayed accurately in that milieu. In fact, I wouldn't want FFC to change that one bit.

But speaking hypothetically about the character of Mama, there are two things I wonder about that are independent of her era. One is the absence of an independent, feisty personality. The second is her seeming unwillingness to admit hard truths to herself.

I think the generalizations of mafia wives of that era are correct; but then beyond that, I don't want us to paint them all with the same brush. They each had individual personalities. I'm not expecting Mama to nag Vito into dismantling his criminal empire; but I didn't see her individuality within her own purview, which was the running of the household. She didn't ask young Vito, for instance, where he got the expensive rug he brought home one day. And, years later, when Carlo told Connie to shut up at the dinner table, Mama likewise didn't say something like, "I know you're not used to hearing this Carlo, but I don't like you to talk to my daughter that way while you're under my roof." (She had a good opportunity since Vito wasn't around.)

Standards of what was acceptable for immigrant wives did change over time, as Don Cardi pointed out. But that change was made possible by women like Mama showing a little sass and taking baby steps to make things different, at least inside their own domestic domains. Mama obviously didn't have this type of personality, and FFC portrayed her as such.

I can also understand Mama not challenging or questioning Vito's more nefarious activities; but I think it was her obligation to the brains God gave her to admit certain things to herself. I don't think she could look at her son Michael and see a mafia don or a murderer. She thinks Connie is wrong about Michael's killing Carlo and tells her so. It is no wonder she has no help or advice for Michael when he talks with her. She doesn't see the toll that building up a criminal empire is taking on his family life. She probably sees him as a junior Vito, using his fearful reputation to help the downtrodden.

So I think Mama was portrayed just fine as she was; she was the traditional Italian wife content with the status quo. But I just wonder if she would be more worthy of adjectives like strong, wise, savvy, and admirable had she gone against the grain of tradition once in a while within her own home.

But that's just it Cristina, you cannot "remove" her and make her independant of that era. It was the era that she was portrayed in and therefore she acted accordingly. She did not know any better because of the era that she was living in.

However in the book, she is fully aware of what Vito is all about because she goes on to teach Kay that she must, like her, go to church everyday and light a candle for her husband's soul. So obviously she was fully aware of the kind of man her husband really was, and the kind of man that her son was turning into.

She stepped up and took control in the spiritual sense, in interceding with God for her husband's passage into the afterworld. But she kept her place in her home, just like most of the woman from that era, who were not Americanized, did.


Don Cardi

Oops. What I meant by that phrase is that there are two things that she didn't show or that she didn't do that I would question or wonder about regardless of the era she lived in. Or, to express it another way, even though she lived in the 1920s, 30s, 40s, and 50s, I don't think these two things were impossible for her to do. They just would have shown how unique she was as a person had she been able to edge in a little modernity, even if it was only when her husband wasn't around.

Or, to make it simpler yet, leave out the phrase "independent of her era" altogether, and I still stand by my post.

I realize (from reading past posts) that in the book, Mama is much more aware. But my focus was just on the Mama we see in the movie. I wonder if in the book, before an hysterical Connie confronts Michael about Carlo's death, Mama argued with her and tried to tell her "you're wrong."

My point is that Mama indeed did not know any better and was typical of the era, as you state. BUT some people use accolades to describe her like strong, remarkable, wise, no nonsense, etc. Since she behaved like any other traditional immigrant Italian housewife, I don't see her as particularly exceptional. What I AM saying is that Mama would be more deserving of those descriptions if she had gone against tradition in some small way, taken one baby step toward independent thinking. THEN I could call her remarkable or strong or admirable for doing that.

You can't simply divorce the book character from the film version of that person.

In a book there are no time constraints, and the author has much more leeway in their ability to tell us what the characters are thinking and feeling.

Absent any direct evidence to the contrary, I believe that it is the intention of the authors of the screenplay that their film characters think and feel the same way as their counterparts in the book on which the film is based, even if they do not directly portray them that way..

And Mama, BTW, does not appear at all in the scene in the book that you mention.

I doubt mama was 'clueless'. She knew exactly the business and way of life her husband led, and her sons had been raised to lead.

Perhaps she decided one day that asking too many questions and attempting to unturn every goddamned stone would make her a pain-in-the-ass. Aside from that she apparently knew to allow herself and her family to be taken care of, hope for the best and look the other way. Michael had to order his wife (Kay) not to ask him about his business. Apparently, Vito did not.

By the way, at this point I must defer to those who have maintained how the novel goes into such greater depth than the film...and with plawrence who says in this thread that you cannot 'divorce' the two (that is, of course once one has actually read the novel). For it is explained carefully in the book how a young 'mama' Corleone comes to the realization and acceptance I suppose...that her husband has stepped over a threshold from regular, honest working family guy to ... well, the Vito Corleone we all know he becomes.

Apple

Mama : Old Fashioned Italian Mob Wife.


Kay : Americanized modern Wasp Mob wife.


Two different woman from two completely different backgrounds.


Don Cardi

Goodness, don't tell that to JustMe!

Of course, it can be done. Film makers do it all the time in the process of adapting the narrative to the screen. Also, when an actor enlivens the "on paper" character with his own voice, mannerisms, appearance, etc., the audience can often see a different personality than the one they pictured.

Look at the way John Cazale portrays Fredo, for instance. From what I've read, his book character was a confident ladies' man and a somewhat tougher and more amoral character. The film Fredo is more awkward, rather afraid of Michael, and not as enmeshed in mob life. But granted, you do allow for this when you say the following:
Yes, that's certainly true in Fredo's case, where it's obvious that the film makers tweaked the character to serve the narrative.

But there IS direct evidence to the contrary in Mama's case as well, which you yourself point out: In the novel, there is no episode of Mama telling Connie she's wrong when she asserts that Michael killed Carlo. But the film makers ADDED such a scene to the movie. Why do you think they did that? They could have left out the part where Mama argues with Connie in the limo and just jumped to Connie confronting Michael. They obviously inserted such a scene, which is contrary to the book characterization of Mama, to show us that there were certain things Mama didn't want to face.

So if I want to discuss that -- or the scene in GF2 when Michael speaks to Mama about losing his family -- then I have to speak about the "film Mama," since those aspects of her are not in the book.

All good points, and all agreed.

I don't want to paint Mama with broad strokes and say that she's "clueless" about everything. There were some things she knew full well; but then there were also other things about which she had no idea, or chose not to believe.

She was fully aware that Connie was ignoring her children, and -- points for Mama -- she spoke up about it. But when Michael came to her asking what Vito thought deep in his heart, she has no answer for him -- because she didn't know what her husband's deepest thoughts were. And when Michael expresses his worries about losing his family, she has no idea what he's talking about.

When she tells Connie that she's wrong about Michael killing Carlo, it's as if Mama is latching on to some idealized version of her "good boy" who, in his overachieving way, has made Vito's business legitimate over night. I can see her knowing what Sonny was into; he was the oldest, the successor-in-waiting. But I can also see her not knowing -- or choosing not to know -- what her youngest son, Michael, is into.

In literature (and film, but I can't think of a film example right now ), the strong, extraordinary, and remarkable people are the ones who did what was unheard of for the times by people of their station. In Far From The Madding Crowd, Bathsheba rode her horse unaccompanied, spoke openly to men, and chose to run her farm on her own. In Jane Eyre, Jane spoke back to her guardian about the horrible way orphan children were treated.

Mama was not an extraordinary woman; she was ordinary and typical of her time, and that's fine. I'm sure she was also a strong woman in her own way, raising and disciplining four children and running a household. But a lot of turn-of-the-century mothers did this without the extra (and guaranteed) income that comes from being married to a mafioso.

So for her to merit being called wise, or smart, or savvy, or direct, or honest, I think she would have had to show a dash of extraordinariness like Bathsheba or Jane Eyre, even if it was only to tell Carlo that she didn't appreciate his speaking to Connie like that at the dinner table.

I disagree now Cristina.

She did step up and speak her mind. Mama showed her ability to see things before they happened, better than any of The Corleone men! She wound up giving better advice than Don Vito! The advice that she gives says it all about her character ;

"Santino, don't interfere."


That advice was probably the best advice given by a Corleone in the GF Trilogy! Look what happened to him as a result of his not listening to his Mama's advice.


Don Cardi

Mamma was anything but clueless. She was just "old school Sicialian." She knew better than to be nagging at Vito all the time (unlike a certain bitchy daughter in law from New Hampshire who came along later). When he was out of work and broke, he brings her all he can afford, and she says, "what a nice pear." When Connie shows up with Merle, she scolds her and tells her to "see her family" and then wait in line for Mike "like everyone else."

She knew what Vito did, and why he did it, and she accepted it. She was plenty "wise" and used that wisdom when it was appropriate.

Yes, God forbid a woman should want to know whether her husband's a murdering Mafia crime lord or not. How pushy can you get?

Yes, God forbid a woman should want to know whether her husband's a murdering Mafia crime lord or not. How pushy can you get? [/QUOTE]


Hey we are talking a marriage that began in 1920.

No, actually I was referring to your mention of "bitchy" Kay's "nagging" her husband. So it was closer to 1950. And I really don't think it's so outrageous for a woman to be interested in whether or not her husband might have, for instance, murdered his brother-in-law. Does this really qualify her for bitchhood? Seems like the kind of thing most reasonable people would want to know about the person they live and sleep with.

But maybe I'm just a bitch to think so.

I know that we're supposed to keep these discussions to the movie and not the book, but I can't help myself. In the book, Mama is completely and totally aware of her family's occupation. Not only does she encourage Kay to pray for her husband's soul as she prays for Vito's, but there is a wonderful scene in the book between Mama, Kay and Tom.

In the movie, the scene was shortened to Kay trying to give Tom a letter for Michael, which he refuses. In the book, however, when she comes into the house to call her cab, she meets Mama. Mama insists that she stay for coffee and chats with Kay about her life as a teacher. She accepts the letter from Kay (over Tom's protests) and tells Kay that she's a nice girl and to forget Mikey because he's not the man for her.

Kay cries after leaving the mall, since she feels that Mama has admitted to her that Michael is indeed a murderer.

These little scenes obviously had to be left out in order to have a movie that was viewable by a large audience, but I think that since Mama's character was not fleshed out in the films, we must refer to her as written in the novel.

As for her being clueless during her chat with Michael, I'm not so sure. I believe that Michael is referring to so many things: Fredo's betrayal, the attack on the house, the loss of the baby, the gulf between him and Kay, Anthony's Christmas present abandoned in the snow - I could go on and on (obviously ).

In the context that Michael refers to loss is beyond Mama's comprehension. It was impossible for her to understand that family could ever act that way. To her, family meant unconditional love and loyalty. It was the one thing you could always depend on. The treachery and abandonment that Michael was experiencing was inconceivable to her.

Hey you two, calm down here!! We're talking about a movie for God's sake. No need to get hostile or mad.

And Dona, for what it's worth, I happen to think that there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to know what her husband is doing outside the home, how he is making his living, etc. But again, we are talking in the now. This movie is set in an era where it was not common for a woman to question a man, ESPECIALLY a man from an old fashioned Italian upbringing.

Now of course Kay was brought up in the American tradition by parents who were also probably born in America. And that is exactly one of the subplots of the GF movie, how she, being a wasp with modern American roots, was not afraid to question Michael on these matters. Think about it or watch closely next time, Kay is probably the one person that Michael cannot look straight in the eye and lie to.

We are shown how much Michael is like his father, and as much as he is the son who is most like his father, he is also different in several ways. Different in the sense that while he is trying to carry on his father's traditions, he really can't, because he himself had a different childhood than his father, and he himself has a different kind of wife than his father. Remember Michael originally despised his father's business, wanting no part of it. And I am sure that deep down inside it bothered him that he was now living the life that he once promised himself that he would never be a part of. This is one of the reasons that he tells Kay that he will legitimize the family in 5 years. First to try and convince her that he would not carry on in his father's ways, and secondly, and more importantly, to try and convince himself that he was not going to continue living the life of a Mafia hood. He told himself, and Kay, that eventually he would be a legitimate businessman. Haaaaa!

But it was really Kay who pressured him about his way of life. And in the context of what Michael and the Corleone's really were, Kay was not the right wife for Michael. Now had Appolonia lived, and had been with Michael through all that he had to do to try bring the family back to respectability and power, I don't think that she would have EVER questioned Michael about his business. I don't think that she would have ever pressured him the way that Kay did. She would have been like Mama Corleone. The perfect Sicilian wife for a gangster. Mama and Appolonia were from the same culture, Kay was not.

So don't take it personal when someone calls Kay a bitchy wife. Truth be told, in the context of the era that the movie took place in, and the background that Michael came from, she was a nagging bitchy wife.

She married Michael fully knowing what he and his family were all about. She knew what she was getting into. She chose to live that life. But she could not change, adjust or adapt to it.

Kay fooled herself into thinking that she could change Michael. Make him do things differently than his family did. But she could not. And Michael fooled himslef into thinking that he would eventually make Kay the perfect sicilan, obedient wife. But he could not.

And becuase they were really only fooling themselves, Kay became the bitchy nagging wife, and Michael became the cold and uncaring husband.


Don Cardi

Kay was just a bitch anyway.

Yes, yes, I know. I just sometimes get a little impatient with the attitude a lot of people seem to have -- that Michael was 100% justified in everything he did and that anyone who questioned any of it was a bitch, a traitor, hopelessly naive, etc., etc., etc. We're talking about a man who commits multiple murders and runs a national crime syndicate. There's room for questioning.

And since this hasn't a thing to do with Mama Corleone, I'll shut up now.

Don't.

You're bringing up a point that we make all too often here; and that is how we glamorize these guys. Mike was a son-of-a-bitch when it came to how he treated Kay. BUT, its important to remember that Mike was a product of his heritage and of the times. He repented somewhat in Part III and its shown in how he treated Kay then (yes, it was too late then, though).

Part of Mike's "problems" in Part II was the Americanization of the times and of his life. For all his insisting that he wasn't like his father, he was a lot like him in his treatment of women. Vito was respectful of them (women) but he also "kept them in their place". Women, especially the old-world Italian women, were not supposed to question their husbands. Kay was the product of a different background; one in which it was acceptable for a woman to be more forward in her relationship with her husband.

Just my opinion, but I didn't get the vibe that Dona was taking the response personally. I just thought she was arguing her point, or, as in a debate/discussion, supporting her argument.

But back to Kay: She may have been a "nagging bitchy wife" from the 1950s husband's perspective. But, by asking questions, Kay was doing something unheard of for the times; and that made her a brave, forward-thinking woman of some backbone for that era. From a general perspective, she merits compliments too -- not just brickbats.

There was one point about which Michael himself gave Kay the right to know: the progress of his "legitimacy plan," which he broached when he proposed to her. He made it a point of trust to tell her that the Family business would be legitimate in five years. It was the only aspect of his business, in fact, that he would tell her. So her reminding him that "it's been seven years" is the one time where Michael -- and we the audience -- can't fault her. In fact, when she does mention it, he does not react with anger as he did at the end of GF1, but instead he gently tells her, "I'm trying."
Yes, Michael wanted Kay to keep her place and mind her business instead of his. But I also got the impression by GF2 that just maybe, deep down inside, he needed her to question him once in a while, which is why he appeared more guilty than angry when Kay shot him that stinging look after the Tahoe shooting. Someone wrote on these boards a while back that Kay was Michael's conscience. Maybe he kind of expected her to keep him on track as far as going legitimate was concerned, to remind him of that goal (although I'm well aware that his own power mongering was the real impediment there).

There was a thread I started a while back about Kay being a Carping Harpie.


The bottom line here is that when she married Michael she knew what he was doing, and she half believed his promise to go legitimate. She was a first class bitch who never should have said "yes" to Mike's proposal. Note how whiny she is even over the small stuff....when Michael says he needs to help his dying father she rolls her eyes, and he has to promise her to take her into town to see a show.
For all her complaining, however, I didn't hear Kay objecting to the lavish lifestyle she had.

Don't let anyone tell you Mama didn't know what was going on. She knew. She also knew better than to say anything to anybody. Sonny's wife Sandra probably knew, too. Some people might say they were wearing rose colored glasses. Remember the word "omerta?"

Besides Mama Corleone, I find almost every female character in the film almost unbearable, save for, perhaps, Kay early on in the first film.

dontomasso, you have inspired me to start a new discussion. For all the money Michael had, I didn't think that Kay lived particularly lavishly. In fact, she seemed like an ordinary housewife: going to market with the kids, sewing her own dresses (or curtains, or whatever), wearing unremarkable fashions, etc.

Let's go over to my new topic and debate why that was .

For those who are interested - here it is:
Kay Carping Harpie