1. https://youtu.be/Q_QVt_JCS54.
Coppola didn't know aiello was going to do the line.
8. https://youtu.be/4kFpSMLPl58.
Coppola just wanted to bail out his winery.

I'm glad he did. He's making some pretty good wine these days.

This board isn't as active as in the good old days, so I'm asking this question of any recent posters.

Any idea where the house used as Don Ciccio's villa in GF II is?

Apparently this is a question a lot of people have asked. And no one knows the answer for sure. Here's a link to one of many discussions:

http://wanderingtrader.com/travel-blog/fun-things-to-do-in-sicily-godfather-shooting-locations/

Yeah, been there too.

I leave for Sicily in two weeks. I'm starting to narrow it down to the point where I'm going to drive up and down a few streets looking for it. But, any clues I might follow would be appreciated.

I'm also looking for the olive oil mill/facility of Tommasino. From what I understand from Roos, it's actually a winery.

I'll be there for nearly three weeks, and will have regular internet access. So, if anybody comes up with anything...

I'll take pictures and post 'em.

One of the most often asked, but unanswered questions that has bedeviled we Board members is why didn't Vito have the mall gravel driveway paved? Certainly he could afford it.

Pavement is middle class. Gravel is upper class, requiring staff.

Paul Fussel wrote a wonderful, often tongue in cheek, book on the American class system. "Class"

Note Don Cicci's villa in Sicily. Gravel. The house of any self respecting English lord. Gravel. Versailles. Gravel.

If pavement is middle class and gravel is upper class, the sign of true royalty must be... dirt.

I know that there are posts about this subject in previous years, but after watching the Epic several times in the last few months (and re-reading the novel), I thought I'd bring it up again.

Did Vito have contempt for America or loathe America? We all know about the deleted scene when he sarcastically refers to Michael's military medals as miracles for strangers. We all know that he refers to Kay as Michael's American girlfriend. Of course, the novel has him stating that he has been good to them when referring to his button men enlisting in the Army as payback for America being good to them.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the novel or Epic which illustrates that to Vito America was nothing more than a
money-making opportunity.

Oli, there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Vito was a "patriot" or "believed in America" as Bonasera stated right at the beginning. I think his attitude toward the US wasn't so much contempt as it was cynicism and skepticism about the hypocrisy that the politicians he bribed evinced through their sanctimony and "American values." I don't think he loathed Amerioca. I think that, to Vito, America was no different in operation than Sicily, just bigger and richer.

That's a long way of saying that I basically agree with you.

I think there was a sort of admiration there, in the book he says something like, "...nothing's impossible here in America." But, yeah, I think it's mostly an admiration for a country that provides ample scope for the ambition of enterprising fellows like himself.

I wonder though if Puzo's writing truly reflects how those Mafiosi of Vito's generation thought of America. While it's one thing to to take advantage of America's entrpreneurial opportunities, it's quite another to criticize a son for fighting for his country and to scathingly refer to a woman as an American.

How come when Tom was being held by Sollozzo he tells Tom to "talk to Sonny and the other two kids"? And also later Tom says to Sonny "Maybe we shouldn't get Mike mixed up in this too directly". I thought Michael wanted nothing to do with that life and also neither did his family members want that for him.

Although Michael wasn't at the drugs meeting, he was still Vito's son. Sol figured (correctly as it turned out) that Michael would have strong feelings to protect and avenge his father.

Correct TB. Also, Sollozzo would have no knowledge of Michael's estrangement from his father. For all he knew, Michael could be another Sonny ... and one with military experience.

Of course, Sollozzo could have said "the other[three] kids.

Thanks TB and Oli. But I believe the question still remains unanswered when it comes to Tom's line, as if they had in a way already planned for Mike to somehow be involved in the family business...or was it in that moment already that they realized that Michael had to be the one to negotiate/get rid of Sollozzo?

Yes, Tom said "maybe we shouldn't get Mike too involved." And Sonny said, "The old man would have my head..." if Michael got involved. And, when Michael said he was going to visit Vito in the hospital, Clemenza proposed that Michael go alone because "Solozzo knows he's a civilian." All reinforcing that Michael explicitly wasn't part of the family business to that point.

What changed? Two things:

First, when Michael saw that Vito was unprotected in the hospital because his bodyguards had been arrested, he said, "I'm with you now, Pop." Many people here believe that it was Michael's turning point--that he was now part of the family business, not simply that he was physically with Vito. Second, when McCluskey broke his jaw, Michael knew he was now personally involved. And finally: Michael was the only logical assassin for Solozzo: Fredo'd had a nervous breakdown and, as Tom said, "Solozzo wouldn't let you near him if he had ten police captains. Besides, as acting head of the family, you can't be risked."

To your point about if it was always planned for Michael to be part of the family: that's a good question. Was Michael always destined to be the Don? Was he destined for a life of crime? In the novel, Vito says, more than once, "a man has but one destiny." He didn't say it about Michael explicitly. In the novel, Clemenza, driving Kay home from Connie's wedding, says that Michael will take over the family business. In the flashback scene at the end of II, Tom tells Michael that "your father and I have made plans for you."

All good points, but I think we are mixing apples and oranges. We're talking about Vito's intentions and Michael's intentions; about destiny which I don't buy because it's 20/20 hindsight; about people's expectations (like Clemenza).

The novel and film portrayal (especially in the Epic) make it clear that Michael had no intention of joining the family business. I don't know how anyone can miss that. That estrangement from his father was mitigated by Vito's near assassination; from then on Michael was with his father as a son, not as a Mafioso. As the novel states, it was in Sicily when Michael began to change when he saw what could have been Vito's life if he had simply accepted his fate. That contributed to his evolution into a Mafioso as did Appolonia's murder. When he returns to the US and sees Kay, he rationalizes his father's world by telling Kay that Vito is no different from any powerful man.

Yes now I believe for certain the possibility of Michael not being by the Don's side until while being in Sicily because of you two now reminded me that before the assassination attempt Michael was being distanced from his father not only from the life style point of view but also as a son caused by their disagreements on the career path. So it wouldn't really make sense if he changed his life style path right there in the hospital room with him because logically you'd have to start out with being a son first which wasn't the case until then.

Regarding the flashback scene, I was always interpreting it as if Vito and Tom were planning a legitimate future for Michael, distanced from the family business and that he even didn't want that but wanted to simply do it all by himself without his family pulling any strings.

Thanks fellas.

As I and others have posted elsewhere, Vito's (and, thus, Tom's) definition of legitimate was different from the usual definition. Vito viewed politicians and police as a commodity: they could be bought and sold and, otherwise, used to advance the family's interests. That's how Vito viewed Michael's future: Governor Corleone; Senator Corleone, and how Michael in those positions could assist the Corleones.

...and it was the viewpoint that Michael adopted when he returned from Sicily to apprentice as Don. The key scene is when he went to New Hampshire to woo Kay. He tells her that "my father is no different than any other powerful man with responsibilities toward others." Kay says that Governors and Senators don't have people killed. "Now who's being naive, Kay," he replies.

Exactly TB. By stating that to Kay, Michael was normalizing his father's conduct (and that of other Mafiosi).

My take, for what it is worth!

Among others,

Did Roth engineer the cop’s entry into the bar, thwarting Frankie Pentangeli’s assassination? (This thread gets the Lifetime Achievement Award.
I believe the killing of Frankie was abandoned because of the unexpected entry of the cop

Then the ever astute Roth used Frankie's 'attempted' [Michael Corleone says Hello!] killing by Michael to his advantage as his Plan C the Senate inquiry ["The Senate lawyer Questadt belongs to Roth"] after Plan A Tahoe bedroom shooting and Plan B Michael's 'accidental' death in Cuba

Frankie should have had more faith in his Don irrespective of how it is deemed he got “kicked around” However Michael did hang Frankie out to dry What happened to the Capo's family being taken care of after the capo's death?

Who killed the Tahoe shooters?
I believe there was a third [!] assassin who took care of the first two assassins who were probably told to wait by Fredo's bedroom for assistance but were always going to be killed to leave no loose ends

There was a car at the gates trying to drive off or something just after the gun fire and Michael's guards were shouting Stop! Stop! then Halt! Also the sentry was slack leaving the gates open

Was Michael wrong to kill Fredo?
I believe so Michael having his brother Fredo killed was unforgivable and unnecessary, especially considering Michael was able to keep Fredo under watch or similar until Mama Corleone's natural death “It really did break Michael's heart”

Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael?
As Vito himself said Sonny was a bad don As Virgil Sollozzo said Sonny was a hothead and can't talk business with him

If Clemenza (rather than Pentangeli) had been in GFII, would he have betrayed Michael?
I don't think so Besides it would have been so uncharacteristic considering the Clemenza we knew in The Godfather He was like a second father

Why didn’t Robert Duvall appear in GFIII?
Robert Duvall felt the pay gap between Al Pacino and him was unacceptable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kFpSMLPl58

Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?
In my opinion apples and oranges

The Mafia business is kill or be killed The bonus for Vito was his wife Carmela

I believe both Vito and Michael were the best Dons they could be, under their respective circumstances Times were changing

The most significant difference is Vito's wife Carmela never questioned Vito about the business. Carmela's love, loyalty and support for Vito was unconditional
So Vito never had to worry about the blood family at all When they married Vito was a law abiding shop employee in a grocery store and only became Mafia after

Vito never had wife nor siblings problems including betrayal Vito never even envisaged the fury, resentment, hatred etc, that Fredo and Connie would harbour towards Michael and actually acted on

In fact Vito planned all the dirty work – killing of Carlo Rizzi and Moe Greene, the baptism murders – for Michael to carry out after Vito's death thus leaving a murderous legacy for Michael

If it is deemed that Michael didn't separate himself from his emotions like Vito knew “how to and did” in my view Vito did not either [Don Ciccio's murder] however because of Vito's family set up there were no consequences

Vito went back years later and killed, a senile, one leg in the grave, Don Ciccio who was living out his last days thousands of miles away absolutely no threat to the Corleones as revenge for killing his family because same as Michael the enemies have to be wiped out

If Michael's wife Kay was like Carmela, Michael would have had it all! When they married Kay knew Michael was Mafia

Who opened the drapes in Michael's bedroom?
Arguably, Fredo opened the window drapes thus 'identifying' Michael's bedroom

I think it's important that Vito do this. Part of Michael's tragedy is that when learns his lessons, he becomes trapped by them. If he learns to pursue enemies to the grave, then he'll do so without discretion.

Nice take, though!

Thanks! Pete

Why did the appearance of Frank Pentangelis brother, cause him to change his testimony?
Frankie's brother, Vincenzo's piercing icy stare was knifelike

I believe Frankie was jolted and reminded of omertà by his brother's presence Made him realise, what he was about to do – betray his Don – is a no-no in the business they have chosen and need to honour the omertà

May I please add a couple of questions
Sorry, if already discussed, I'd appreciate the link Thanks

Whilst having drinks in Havana, so that the brothers can spend some time together, especially when Michael didn't want Fredo to do anything, just go along with it

Why did Michael tell Fredo “Hyman Roth will never see the New Year"

Among others, Fredo had just told Michael that
1. Perhaps a bit of envy - not having married a woman like Michael's wife, Kay [oh, boy!] having kids etc.
2. He was mad at Michael [why?]
3. Why didn't [Fredo and Michael] spend time like this before [before what?]

As far as I can recall, except for the Sollozzo drugs meeting, Fredo had not been privy to the family business thus far

Fredo didn't even know that the Corleones were wanting to buy out Moe Greene's share of the hotel or that Vito was semi retired or what the $2M dollars was for

Was Michael trying to console Fredo that Fredo was no gypsy!

At that time Michael still had not found the traitor in his family

Michael seems to be giving pondering looks at Fredo but if he had the slightest suspicion Fredo was involved, he would never have revealed such an important hit, in Roth friendly country too – it could have jeopardised the whole operation. So risky
[well, Roth did survive but reckon not because of Fredo Then again Fredo did try to 'disappear' on the pretext of getting a real drink!!]

There was too much at stake for Michael to use the Roth hit as bait, to test Fredo

So uncharacteristic indeed and hard to fathom, why Michael was suddenly inclusive of Fredo

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment?

Kay's abortion makes no sense as no doctor would dare abort a Corleone child!

I believe Kay might have miscarried perhaps the trauma of the bedroom shooting

Michael had already said
“Kay, what do you want from me? Do you expect me to let you go? Do you expect me to let you take my children from me? Don't you know me? Don't you know that that's an impossibility that could never happen. That I would use all my power to keep something like that from happening Don't you know that”?

Then when Kay realised it was an 'impossibility' used the abortion, for Michael to allow her to leave him, during her "unholy and evil" speech at Hotel Washington

How can Kay as a mother leave their children [according to Kay] especially Anthony who is 'not' fine, in the unholy and evil Sicilian thing, with the father who is 'blind' to everything other than business and the children's friends are Michael's buttonmen?

I believe as a mother Kay should have at least taken up the second chance Michael offered and tried to salvage the situation for the sake of their children

Michael seemed stunned by Kay's outburst and would have been forced to make the changes he promised in the beginning of the conversation

Also, Kay says she knew “no way Michael could ever forgive her” makes me to wonder even more that it was a miscarriage because what mother would 'abort' their child to spite their father Now that is unholy and evil!

And Michael was sprung by Kay in front of Rocco! Fancy telling Michael that “children are outside, we are going” in front of a buttonman!

Also Kay didn't seem happy! that Michael was “too smart to let any of them beat him”

It seems Kay did not know Michael after all

I think she saw that she couldn't overcome the environment from the inside. She had to get away and arrange some plausible life away from the family for the children to come live in. She might not have considered the children to be less safe with Michael than with her - she had no ability to protect them and no way to know if someone would target them and their toys.

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment?

I think Kay felt she had to first get free of Michael before she could do anything to help her children, and she knew that in order to do that she had to make him not want her anymore...otherwise he'd never let her go.

Now this is just my opinion... but I personally think that Kay lied when she told Michael it was an abortion, I don't see how she could have managed to have an abortion while being constantly watched by Michaels guys, nor do I see how she could have secretly found a doctor willing to do it. I think Kay miscarried because of the stress of her situation and then she saw that as her opportunity to free herself from Michael.

Plus I find it almost fitting that Kay would take her revenge on Michael with a lie, right to his face..as he lied to her face at the end of the first film. In her mind Kay was giving him a taste of his own medicine, and you could tell Kay was reveling in her brief moment of power over Michael...I always felt like she was almost daring him to hit her just to prove that she had gotten to him.

Just my interpretation of course, one of the things I love is that its never confirmed for the audience whether Kay lied about the abortion or not, so you can interpret it either way depending on your preference.

Pete, for the life of me I don't understand the need for the question:

"KAY what do you want from me? Do you expect me to let you go? Do you expect me to let you take my children from me? Don't you know me? Don't you know that that's an impossibility -- that that could never happen. That I would use all my power to keep something like that from happening -- don't you know that?"

Who was a better Don: Vito or Michael?

to amplify! my post [from 28 January 2017]

Times were changing

And of utmost importance - Vito was the father the undisputed head of the family

Fredo would never have done what he did to Michael [kid brother] to Vito [father] or Sonny [older brother]

1. Carmela never questioned Vito about the business In fact she even got Vito to help her friend, Signora Colombo to stay on, in her flat, even kept the dog
2. It seems business and blood family were kept separate and both thrived Business taken care of by Vito Blood family taken care of by Carmela

It is deemed Vito kept the family together but Michael destroyed it How so?

If Michael's wife Kay was like Carmela, Michael too would have had it all!
When they married Kay knew Michael was Mafia unlike Carmela [Vito became Mafia after]

If my memory serves me right,
whatever Michael did were to other Mafia people [kill or be killed]

Whereas Vito
1. It seems the band leader took on Johnny Fontane, when he was probably an unknown and helped him build his career
As soon as Johnny became well known / famous, Vito got Johnny out of the contract as Johnny wanted and the band leader lost out on his share of Johnny's earnings as per the contract

2. Jack Woltz lost $600,000 prize horse, Khartoum [gruesome] and was forced to give Johnny the part in his movie [And not because of Woltz paedophile history but because Johnny was Vito's Godson]

This is not right! Why should 'civilians' be terrorised and subjected to such terror tactics and lose out what they have worked hard for? to pamper and indulge Vito's Godson?

At least Michael ended up remorseful for his sins

Vito “I don't apologize that's my life” left a murderous legacy for “I never wanted this for you” son Michael

Why did Kay leave the children in the unholy and evil environment

How was it that Kay was happy to enjoy the spoils of the unholy and evil Sicilian thing for five years, the time frame for legitimacy

Kay tells Michael he was 'blind' but seems Kay was 'blind' too

However Kay wanted to undermine Michael, whatever Kay's motive was – a mother leaving their children in the unholy and evil environment, with the unholy and evil father, with nothing absolutely nothing of her grievous concerns addressed / rectified, in my opinion is unholy and evil itself on Kay's part

It seems to me, Kay wanted out of her 'abortion' of a marriage at any cost even without her children, just abandoning them with the unholy and evil father – what a selfish hypocrite!

As a matter of interest wonder what effort Kay made regarding
1. the 'abortion' of Michael and her marriage
2. feeling no love for Michael
3. what's happened to Michael and her
4. what's happened to 'not fine' Anthony
5. Anthony's friends are Michael's buttonmen