I do think Michael and Vito were both evil. Each of them places little value on human life if it gets in the way of what they want. Each will order murders in a nanosecond if they feel it's required. They both set up elaborate organizations that ran on fear, fed on people's vulnerabilities, and extorted money and services. Greed and Pride were extreme in both men even as they talked about family and respect. You could even be minding your own business (as both the bandleader and Woltz were) and if you had something Vito wanted, he would take it under threat of violence.

The difference that I see is that Vito is a bit more of a
Magnificent Bastard than Michael was. Vito was much more affable and actually occasionally helped people without an immediate expectation of a return favor. Michael was more the Chessmaster
but couldn't hold on to his family as Vito did. I do think he took things beyond where Vito would have gone.

But they were both evil. If Nazorine hadn't paid up his protection money to the Don's bakers organization (from the book)or if someone borrowed money from a Corleone loan shark and didn't pay it back with appropriate interest those folks would have gotten hurt. Badly.

Wait. Are you describing Vito Corleone or Adolph Hitler?

"You could even be minding your own business (as both the bandleader and Woltz were) and if you had something Vito wanted, he would take it under threat of violence."

I don't think they were merely "minding their own business." Minding your own business would be a store owner who gangsters go to and demand protection money. The situation with the bandleader and Woltz was different. Particularly Woltz. In his conversation with Tom, Woltz made it clear that he was denying Johnny the role because of a personal vendetta and a desire to "run him out of the business," even though he actually believed Johnny was perfect for the role. While one could argue that Woltz had a right to cast whoever he wanted for whatever reason, Johnny, Tom and Vito still had huge reason to be pissed. Although one might seriously question whether killing an innocent horse was an acceptable response, Woltz was not some poor little innocent victim that had something terrible happen to him for no reason.

"Wait. Are you describing Vito Corleone or Adolph Hitler?"

How many times have the words "wisdom" and "compassion" been used regarding Hitler?

Hmm. I see it differently.
It's explained more in the book that Woltz was too stupid and egocentric to recognize that Vito was playing in a different league than he was but that aside, Woltz's only mistake was not giving Fontane a role that Fontane (and Vito) thought Fontane deserved. Woltz was not beholden to Vito in any way and owed him no favors or money. What Vito did to Woltz (and whoever Woltz had given the movie role to) was exactly what Fanucci had done to Vito years before when he leaned on Abbandando to get Vito fired. It was pure extortion. It was a higher level and for bigger stakes but the principle was the same. "Give my friend what he wants or I will harm you".

So Woltz was minding his own business and through no action of his own ran afoul of Vito. Woltz certainly has the right to run his studio as he sees fit without an obscure olive oil importer telling him who to hire.

*Woltz is not innocent (in the book the crime with the young girl appalled Vito) but he hadn't involved himself in Vito's world.

** Also I think it's very likely that once Vito discovered that Woltz could be bullied , Vito (and his friends) would have expanded extortion and racketeering activities on Hollywood in general and Woltz in particular. Woltz never would have been free.

"...Woltz's only mistake was not giving Fontane a role that Fontane (and Vito) thought Fontane deserved."

But didn't Woltz also think Fontane deserved it, on acting merit at least? Remember what he said to Tom: "That part is perfect for him..." Aren't acting roles supposed to go to who the role is most suited for?

Listen to what Woltz says, Woltz despised Fontaine.

"Listen to what Woltz says, Woltz despised Fontaine."

I know he despised him as a person. When I said "deserved," I meant that Woltz thought Johnny would be the best actor for the role.

The film doesn't show much violence. We see mostly the top level gangsters. This is what leads Vito to the deteriorated self image: "After all we're not murderers." But murderers they were from the very beginning.
Clemenza would have killed the cop when they stole the carpet.
They would have killed the truck drivers they robbed if they didn't give in.
The novel and the film portray Vito as a mild mannered man. And this is what makes the character Don Corleone so interesting: The killer and the tender, loving man.

And don't forget that in the novel an olive oil wholesaler who refused to give in to Vito disappeared leaving his wife and children behind.

Ruthless is as ruthless does. Michael said it succinctly when he wooed Kay in New Hampshire: "My father is no different than other men with responsibilities..." Powerful men have always justified the use of force--or being "forceful" or "effective"--to get their way, and identifying getting their way with overall good. "Politicians don't have people killed," Kay replied. Was Truman "ruthless" in using atomic bombs to bring an end to WWII? Was Gov. Rockefeller "ruthless" in ordering NY State troopers to use tear gas and shotguns to end a revolt at Attica State Prison? The end justifies the means--as long as you agree with the end.

Excellent point, Turnbull. It's like the terrorist/freedom fighter distinction: If you agree with the aims of nonstate actors who use violence in pursuit of political goals, you generally consider them freedom fighters, if not, terrorists.

Well, there's more to it than that. Exterminating Jews during Hitler's Third Reich was agreed to by many Germans. But aren't there higher moral standards that humaity ascribes to than those Germans ascribed to? Also, there are applicable concepts and principles in American law. One is that government must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting a Constitutional right and it also must be the least restrictive.

Olivant,

I don't see what you're getting at. What do the Holocaust and the U.S. Constitution have to do with what's being discussed here? And not to get off topic, but I don't think the vast majority of Germans actually "agreed to" the Holocaust.

Perhaps what we discuss here, is a historical problem. When Vito came to New York, he realized, that the government, the police, etc. couldn't handle the violence. Just the opposite - they were corrupt. In fact, the situation in Little Italy was not much different than in Sicily: You had to fight in order to survive. And Vito discovered he was a good fighter.
So becoming a Don, Vito reinforced the status quo of political corruption and violence which he had despised when he came to the US.
He did well in pacifying the gang wars.
But he despised democracy, and he did what he could in undermining it.

Chaplin's Monsieur Verdoux asks the same question in the end of that film(1947).
But Michael continues: "My father's way of doing things is over, it's finished. Even he knows that. In five years, the Corleone Family is going to be completely legitimate."
(At that time, Michael probably believed it, he hadn't got greedy, addicted to power, control and violence.)
But my point is: If Vito knew that his way of doing things was over, he realized that a new era of democracy was dawning. And chances were good, that you could make a normal business without getting involved in illegitimate activities.
No. The means are part of the moral judgment. To use your example: Truman knew that the Japanese were willing to surrender. He should have known that they wouldn't accept the Potsdam ultimatum the way it was written. He didn't even tell the Japanese what they had to fear.
Considering the means to our ends, is part of what we call wisdom.

Of course the means are part of a moral judgment. I meant that "justifies" is in the mind of the perpetrator. To Michael, the end (trapping Geary) justified the means (killing a hooker and pinning it on Geary). To Truman, the end (swiftly ending a war and avoiding an invasion that could have lasted three years and cost millions of casualties on both sides) justified the means (wiping out two good-sized cities instantly with nuclear weapons).

BTW: "Downfall" by Richard Frank (Random House, 1999), considered by many historians to be the definitive, detailed account of the end of the war in the Pacific, shows clearly that the Japanese were not ready to surrender, even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.

TB there is a second pronng to the decision to nuke Japan. Apparently the Russians were going full speed ahead to capture Northern Japan (they still laim they own two islands there), so Truman et al. wanted the war with Japan over on our terms and without another Yalta-like outcome.

But I digress. Imagine the nerve of them Japs doing what they did on Vito's birthday. Talk about ruthless.

It's actually not clear that the atomic bombs were what caused Japan to surrender. One must remember that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan during the same week that the bombs were dropped. I'm inclined to suspect that the Soviet entry into the war was more important--perhaps even decisive on its own. After all, Curtis LeMay's command had already conducted brutal firebombing raids on more than 60 Japanese cities. The raid on Tokyo, on March 9-10 1945, killed more civilians than died at Hiroshima. If this type of destruction did nothing to convince Japan to surrender, I'm skeptical that merely dropping a more advanced type of bomb was what did it.

I don't think so Vito. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific war merely confirmed the Emperor's decision to surrender. Keep in mind that the Soviets had been successfully battling the Japanese in China and Korea ever since Germany's surrender. So, the declaration of war was just a formality. For the first time during the war, Hirohito used his Godlike position to command the Japanese armed forces to lay down their arms. The surrender message itself by the Emperor was unheard of since the Emperor never spoke to his people. The Atomic bombs were what convinced him.

"Keep in mind that the Soviets had been successfully battling the Japanese in China and Korea ever since Germany's surrender."

That's actually not true. The Soviets did not invade Manchuria and Korea until after the declaration of war on August 8, 1945.

"The surrender message itself by the Emperor was unheard of since the Emperor never spoke to his people. The Atomic bombs were what convinced him."

The evidence is actually contradictory on what convinced the Emperor. In his address to the Japanese people, he did mention the bombs, but in his address to the military, he mention the Soviet invasions and not the bombs. It's possible that the combination of both persuaded him. I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

Truman's main objective at the Potsdam Conference in July '45 was to make sure that Stalin would deliver on his promise, made to FDR at Yalta the previous February, that the USSR would enter the war against Japan three months after Germany surrendered. So, even though Truman was informed at Yalta that the test of the first A-bomb in New Mexico was successful, he still wanted the USSR in the war. The Soviets did declare war on Japan exactly three months after Germany surrendered, and it was followed swiftly with the Hiroshima bomb. That, combined with the Nagasaki bomb, pushed Japan to surrender. I don't believe the Japanese expected the Soviets to enter the war. The combination of the two A-bombs and the Soviet invasion were decisive.

The Emperor definitely was "dovish" compared to the War Cabinet's refusal to surrender. But he was a constitutional monarch who had limited political and temporal power. The War Cabinet ruled Japan to the end.

After the Hiroshima bomb, a big majority of the War Cabinet favored continuing because they thought that bomb was a one-off. But after the Soviets invaded, and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Cabinet divided on surrender almost evenly between the "four conditions" faction (Emperor stays on the throne, no Allied occupation of Japan, Japanese control over war crimes trials, Japanese control over disarmament); and the "one condition" faction (Emperor stays on the throne). Under the Constitution, the Emperor was required to be the tie-breaker, and he chose the latter option. His "rescript" (recording of his message asking Japanese to accept surrender) almost never got on the air: Fanatical Army officers attempted to seize the recording and isolate the Emperor. That revolt resulted in dozens of casualties, and nearly succeeded.

All your points are well taken, Turnbull, but as I said before, I don't think we actually know for certain why Japan surrended. Even today, the evidence is somewhat contradictory, and historians still disagree. For example, Richard Frank in "Downfall" stresses the important of the bombs, while Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in his book "Racing the Enemy," argues that the Soviet intervention was decisive by itself without the bombs. One of the biggest problems in answering "was it the bombs, the Soviets, or both" is that both developments happend virtually simultaneously.

Well, of course we don't know for sure. All the principals involved being dead, they did not leave us with definitive information. So, we speculate. The surrender by the Japanese Cabinet and Hirohito was more than likely based on the proximate devastation wrought by the atomic bombs on the Japanese homeland and not the Soviet's near destruction of the Japanese Kwamtung army in far-away China.

Ehm, are we still talking about Vito's ruthlessness?

olivant:

"The surrender by the Japanese Cabinet and Hirohito was more than likely based on the proximate devastation wrought by the atomic bombs on the Japanese homeland and not the Soviet's near destruction of the Japanese Kwamtung army in far-away China."

I once saw a picture of Tokyo after the March 1945 firebombing. Next to it was one of Hiroshima after the atomic bombing. The two cities didn't look a lot different.

I think we outsourced it.

Vito, it wasn't the comparative destruction. It was its function as the product of two weapons delivered only two times. The Japanese could not know how many more such weapons the Americans had to deliver to Japanese cities.

The Soviet forces were on the Asian mainland; the Atomic bombs were falling from above.

"The Soviet forces were on the Asian mainland; the Atomic bombs were falling from above."

The Soviets would have been on Japan's soil had the war continued. After the war was over, Japan would have probably have been divided into "North Japan" and "South Japan" the same way Korea and Vietnam were.