, so they called him "Godfather" for those reasons.

For which reasons?

You need protection from shakedown artists? Talk to Vito.
You want advice on whether you should open up a new grocery store? Talk to Vito.
You just arrived from overseas and need employment? Talk to Vito.
You need someone to mediate a political dispute? Talk to Vito.
You can't decide who to vote for? Talk to Vito.
You need for the city/state licensing board to stop bothering your business? Talk to Vito.
You want to have Vito as a friend? Ask him to be godfather to your children.

While normally a religious affiliation, there were many who came to love and respect Vito for his help (like Nazorine the baker), so they called him "Godfather" for those reasons.

Fuck you. Pay me.

The scene with Bonasera shows a certain conceit on Vito's part. Bonasera wasn't ready to accept the type of "godfather" relationship that his other petitioners had with him. Bonasera wanted to treat him as a hired gun. Obviously Vito wasn't going to let Bonasera use him that way. But, IMO, he reinforced his terms by demanding that Bonasera call him "godfather" ("you don't even think to call me Godfather...").

Alot of Board members give Vito a pass, but I don't. He was a lowlife despite outward appearances.

Alot of Board members give Vito a pass, but I don't. He was a lowlife despite outward appearances.

Let's fact it, Vito was romanticized. This is a man who ordered the beheading of an extremely valuable race horse because he didn't get his way. And, yet, who wasn't a little bit happy that Woltz was bested?? Not only is Vito portrayed as this kindly man doing favors for his friends, but his enemies were always arrogant buffoons (Woltz, Tattaglia, Fanucci).

I agree ollie.

And I think (not making excuses, just an observation)that many give Vito a pass because of the way the writers cleverly portray Vito compared to the others.

We see Vito commit cold blooded murder when he gets revenge on Don Ciccio and co. And many accept and forgive his act of murder because, after all, Don Ciccio wiped out his whole family. But bottom line is that murder is murder. Sin is sin.

How many hard working families did Vito's "businesses" and actions destroy? We are never shown that! Instead we are shown a quiet, soft spoken man who rose from the streets helping poor widows, providing services and "justice" to those who were unfairly treated by the laws of the land.

Many are blinded by the fact that Vito was a cold blooded murderer, a leach, because they are instead shown a man who refuses to get into drugs, scolds his son for fooling around with another woman because a man who doesn't spend time with his family could never be a real man! Hey, this guy has morals! Won't get into the drug business or cheat on his wife, but at the same time he'll order the murder of another human being or destroy a hard working man's life and family with just the wave of his hand.

I know it is just a movie, but I must agree olivant. He is a lowlife criminal just like the rest of them.

So, who invented the term "Godfather" for this special kind of relationship?

Let's fact it, Vito was romanticized. This is a man who ordered the beheading of an extremely valuable race horse because he didn't get his way. And, yet, who wasn't a little bit happy that Woltz was bested?? Not only is Vito portrayed as this kindly man doing favors for his friends, but his enemies were always arrogant buffoons (Woltz, Tattaglia, Fanucci).

interesting that you use the killing a horse as an example....thought you'd use the bandleader story as an unambiguous example of what Vito was about, but I guess you're an animal lover.

Not really, but the band leader was also trying to take advantage of Johnny's fame and get rich while not paying Johnny very much. Plus, he was a human being, who could make his own decisions. Can't say the same for the horse.

We see Vito commit cold blooded murder when he gets revenge on Don Ciccio and co. And many accept and forgive his act of murder because, after all, Don Ciccio wiped out his whole family. But bottom line is that murder is murder. Sin is sin.

Vito's killing of Don Ciccio was no more cold blooded than the government strapping someone to a chair and injecting a deadly substance into their arm. The latter only isn't "murder" because it's legal. And the prosecutors, judges, and juries who sentence people to death aren't people who were personally affected by the crime like Vito was by what Don Ciccio did. If I were Vito I'd have done the same thing.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make in how the director and writer are cleverly able to make some in the movie look like outright cold blooded murderers and then make Vito look justified in his acts of murder, when in truth, they are all guilty of committing cold blooded murder.

And where, in my post did I ever justify death sentences by the government or any of the other pezzanovante? Besides,what in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make in how the director and writer are cleverly able to make some in the movie look like outright cold blooded murderers and then make Vito look justified in his acts of murder, when in truth, they are all guilty of committing cold blooded murder.

And where, in my post did I ever justify death sentences by the government or any of the other pezzanovante? Besides,what in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with it because, in my experience, people who do a certain behavior who aren't pezzonovante are often condemned for it while those who are (prosecutors, governments, presidents. etc.) and do something similar are often not condemned. I don't believe moral judgments should be made based on whether someone is in a position of authority or not.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make in how the director and writer are cleverly able to make some in the movie look like outright cold blooded murderers and then make Vito look justified in his acts of murder, when in truth, they are all guilty of committing cold blooded murder.

And where, in my post did I ever justify death sentences by the government or any of the other pezzanovante? Besides,what in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with it because, in my experience, people who do a certain behavior who aren't pezzonovante are often condemned for it while those who are (prosecutors, governments, presidents. etc.) and do something similar are often not condemned. I don't believe moral judgments should be made based on whether someone is in a position of authority or not.

I think that you missed the point that I was trying to make in how the director and writer are cleverly able to make some in the movie look like outright cold blooded murderers and then make Vito look justified in his acts of murder, when in truth, they are all guilty of committing cold blooded murder.

And where, in my post did I ever justify death sentences by the government or any of the other pezzanovante? Besides,what in the world does that have to do with the topic at hand?

It has to do with it because, in my experience, people who do a certain behavior who aren't pezzonovante are often condemned for it while those who are (prosecutors, governments, presidents. etc.) and do something similar are often not condemned. I don't believe moral judgments should be made based on whether someone is in a position of authority or not.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. There is ZERO equivalency between Vito's murders of Don Ciccio and his henchmen and the execution of a convicted murderer by the government.

In the latter situation, our society has laws - created by elected representatives of the populace - designed to ensure the greatest possible good for the most possible people. There is a process in place, with disinterested parties making dispassionate decisions, and an appeals process designed to ensure fairness. I understand that, in practice, there are many problems with the system, but that's the theory behind it. You imply that executions should be carried out by individual members of the pezzenovante openly and with the support of society, despite the fact that this would have none of the admittedly inadequate safeguards of the current system.

Vito's murders in Sicily are pure vengeance. There is no benefit to society on any level. Even if there were, allowing individuals to make those choices with no checks or balances (other than others' individual powers) wil only serve to rend the fabric of society, whereas the legal system (in theory), solidifies it.

Incidentally, I am a strong opponent of capital punishment. But there's a huge difference between acts carried out within a well-established legal framework and vigilante actions. It's way too facile to say one is OK because it's "legal."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I completely disagree with what you've said here. Yes, the killing of Don Ciccio was vengeance, but it was very arguably justified vengeance. How would you have liked having your entire family be murdered? And it's very hard to argue that capital punishment isn't just as vengeful, or that "society" derives any more benefit from the government executing people than it did (or would have, given that the Godfather movies weren't real life) from Vito killing Ciccio. As the example of Charles Manson shows, it is perfectly possible to remove a threat to society by keeping that person in prison for the rest of their life. Furthermore, it's difficult to sustain your argument that there's zero equivalency when law enforcement officials themselves state that one of the aims of the criminal justice system is "to punish" (this is what a professor of mine, who himself was a prosecutor and is now a judge, said in an introductory paralegal course)--not simply to protect society. I guess the difference between "punishment" and "vengeance" is similar to that between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist"--in either case, if one approves of the action, the first word is used to describe it, while if one doesn't, the second is used.

Fair enough.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that one is punishment and another is not. The distinction I am drawing is between an act carried out by an individual based on his own notions of justice compared to one carried out by within a system developed over centuries with the support of society.

I understand why Vito killed those men. I also understand why people support captal punishment. I approve of neither, but that doesn't mean they're morally equivalent. That lets Vito and the rest of the Mafia off far too easily.