GangsterBB.NET
Who's Online
11 registered (Mack, Scorsese, bobbyvegas, funkster, slumpy, gram6814, jonnynonos, Slugger, Toby, mightyhealthy, 1 invisible), 146 Guests and 130 Spiders online.
Shout Box

Site Links
>Help Page
>More Smilies
>GBB on Facebook
>Gina's Artroom
>Job Saver

>Godfather Website
>Scarface Website
>Mario Puzo Website
>Gangster TV Listings

>MobPosters.com
>Puzo Amazon Store
>Ebay: Godfather
>Ebay: Scarface

>Live Chatroom
Wanna help out?


More from MobPosters.com



Active Member Birthdays
No birthdays today
Today on TV
July 23, 6:02 pm
Time (ET) Movie Chan
Unable to connect to DB
Newest Members
fanaledrinks, Carosophia, littledonnie, BoyBlue, JoeyO
8502 Registered Users
Top Posters
Irishman12 54602
DE NIRO 42756
J Geoff 30286
The Italian Stallionette 24795
SC 21855
Mignon 18738
Don Cardi 18185
pizzaboy 17905
Sicilian Babe 17192
Turnbull 16618
plawrence 15058
Beth E 14900
Forum Stats
8502 Members
20 Forums
29915 Topics
766336 Posts

Max Online: 663 @ 05/27/12 05:37 PM
Topic Options
#643724 - 04/13/12 06:00 PM Barzini's underestimation of Michael
dontommasino Offline

Underboss
Registered: 11/02/04
Posts: 583

Loc: Toronto, Ontario
Quote:
They didn't know Michael well enough to know what he was capable of so they probably did think he was young and foolish enough to believe Carlo.

They had no idea of the depth of his cunning.


This was posted in the thread about Carlo and it spawned another thought. I know that in the novel the murder of McCluskey and Solozzo is pinned on the Bocchicchio clan member, but the Bocchicchio's are ignored completely in the morning aside from the line Clemenza gives about the hostage playing pinochle with his men.

My theory is predicated on the Commission simply using that as a means to an end. That is, it's no secret to the Barzinis, Tattaglias, Straccis and Cuneos that Michael was indeed the perpurtrator of the murders, but merely that after the years of bloodshed, if clearing Michael meant the peace then they would go along with it.

If all of this is true, then how does Barzini account from that when he underestimates Michael in the future? Unless, they believe that Michael was merely the trigger-man and that the operation to kill Solozzo and McCluskey was planned by Sonny and the capos.

Top
#643729 - 04/13/12 06:15 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
mustachepete Offline

Underboss
Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 579

Loc: Falls Church, VA
Originally Posted By: dontommasino

My theory is predicated on the Commission simply using that as a means to an end. That is, it's no secret to the Barzinis, Tattaglias, Straccis and Cuneos that Michael was indeed the perpurtrator of the murders, but merely that after the years of bloodshed, if clearing Michael meant the peace then they would go along with it.

If all of this is true, then how does Barzini account from that when he underestimates Michael in the future? Unless, they believe that Michael was merely the trigger-man and that the operation to kill Solozzo and McCluskey was planned by Sonny and the capos.


I think that everyone would assume it was Michael. For instance, I don't see any reason why Barzini and Tataglia wouldn't know that Sollozzo had set the meeting with Michael.

I think you're right, they'd think he was merely the trigger man. I think Michael was underestimated as a Don -- for strategy and leadership -- more than for courage or street smarts.
_________________________
"All of these men were good listeners; patient men."

Top
#643731 - 04/13/12 06:21 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: mustachepete]
olivant Offline


Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 12312

Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: mustachepete
I think you're right, they'd think he was merely the trigger man. I think Michael was underestimated as a Don -- for strategy and leadership -- more than for courage or street smarts.



Yes. Remember that even Tessio (in the novel) detects in Michael a force clevely kept hidden.
_________________________
"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."

Top
#643742 - 04/13/12 08:25 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: olivant]
Turnbull Offline



Registered: 10/14/01
Posts: 16620

Loc: AZ
Yes. Michael was following Vito's advice to make his enemies think he was weak. In the novel's account of the war between Maranzalla and up-and-coming Vito, it says that Vito had a reputation only as "a parliamentary debater." Later, the other Dons gave Michael credit for "a bravura job on Solozzo and McCluskey" but think that his principal problem is that he "lacks force."
_________________________
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.

Top
#643759 - 04/13/12 11:51 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: olivant]
SC Offline
Consigliere


Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 21855

Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: olivant
Originally Posted By: mustachepete
I think you're right, they'd think he was merely the trigger man. I think Michael was underestimated as a Don -- for strategy and leadership -- more than for courage or street smarts.


Yes. Remember that even Tessio (in the novel) detects in Michael a force clevely kept hidden.


Yet it was Tessio who was ready to switch sides because he didn't believe enough in Mike. Why is it that Puzo kept saying how smart Tessio was?
_________________________
.

Top
#643764 - 04/14/12 12:49 AM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
I think Mike gets too much credit honestly of being clever. I mean Vito pretty much spells everything out for him before he dies. he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him. And also gives him infor on Barzini


Edited by JCrusher (04/14/12 12:49 AM)

Top
#643765 - 04/14/12 12:51 AM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: JCrusher]
olivant Offline


Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 12312

Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him.


In what scene does that take place?
_________________________
"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."

Top
#643766 - 04/14/12 01:08 AM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: olivant]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
Originally Posted By: olivant
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him.


In what scene does that take place?

Before vito dies when they are talking outside in the garden. remember "it just wasn't enough time Michael"


Edited by JCrusher (04/14/12 01:09 AM)

Top
#643767 - 04/14/12 01:32 AM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: JCrusher]
olivant Offline


Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 12312

Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
Originally Posted By: olivant
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him.


In what scene does that take place?

Before vito dies when they are talking outside in the garden. remember "it just wasn't enough time Michael"


He never mentions anybody.


Edited by olivant (04/14/12 01:33 AM)
_________________________
"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."

Top
#643768 - 04/14/12 01:35 AM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: olivant]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
Originally Posted By: olivant
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
Originally Posted By: olivant
Originally Posted By: JCrusher
he tells him either tessio or Clemenza wil approach him to whack him.


In what scene does that take place?

Before vito dies when they are talking outside in the garden. remember "it just wasn't enough time Michael"


He never mentions anybody.

He doesnt mention the names but its not that hard to figure out lol. Mike knows who he is talking about

Top
#643804 - 04/14/12 04:32 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: JCrusher]
Turnbull Offline



Registered: 10/14/01
Posts: 16620

Loc: AZ
Vito says, "Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor." But, who else but Tess or Clem might come to him with the Barzini meeting? When Michael tells Tom that it's Tess, Tom replies, "I always thought it would be Clemenza." Pretty clear where everyone's thinking was going.
_________________________
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.

Top
#643812 - 04/14/12 05:35 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: Turnbull]
olivant Offline


Registered: 02/11/03
Posts: 12312

Loc: Texas
Originally Posted By: Turnbull
Vito says, "Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor." But, who else but Tess or Clem might come to him with the Barzini meeting? When Michael tells Tom that it's Tess, Tom replies, "I always thought it would be Clemenza." Pretty clear where everyone's thinking was going.


How about Carlo? Or Neri? or Rocco? Or Tom for that matter?
_________________________
"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."

Top
#643814 - 04/14/12 05:41 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: Turnbull]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
Originally Posted By: Turnbull
Vito says, "Whoever comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor." But, who else but Tess or Clem might come to him with the Barzini meeting? When Michael tells Tom that it's Tess, Tom replies, "I always thought it would be Clemenza." Pretty clear where everyone's thinking was going.

Exactly Turnball. what i love about the Godfather is taht they dont spell everything out for you but they still give you the answers. Right before that scene both tessio and Pete are complaining to Mike that Barzini is starting to squeeze them out so it had to be one of them. Rocco was a rising star so he had nothing to gain for being a traitor, neri we all know wouldn't switch sides so it had to be Sally or pete


Edited by JCrusher (04/14/12 05:42 PM)

Top
#643824 - 04/14/12 07:50 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: olivant]
Turnbull Offline



Registered: 10/14/01
Posts: 16620

Loc: AZ
Originally Posted By: olivant


How about Carlo? Or Neri? or Rocco? Or Tom for that matter?


Carlo wasn't inside the family business and had no upfront reason to have contact with Barzini. Michael crapped him up about being his "right hand man" in Nevada (where Carlo was born), but they weren't in Nevada yet. Though Barzini recruited him to set up Sonny, Barzini would be giving his trap away if he used Carlo to set up the meeting. Neri and Rocco were loyal to Michael and in any event wouldn't have logical reasons to have contact with Barzini. The "protocol" would be for Barzini to contact one of the caporegimes, or Tom. But in the novel, recall that Michael speculates on who Barzini would contact. "Someone like me," Tom muses. "No, you're too close to me," Michael replies, "and besides, you're Irish." "I'm German-American," Tom replies. "To them that's Irish," Michael answers. He also rules out Neri because "Neri was a cop."
_________________________
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu sparsu,
E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu...
E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu
Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.

Top
#643827 - 04/14/12 07:55 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
danielperrygin Offline

Underboss
Registered: 04/05/12
Posts: 578
Also i dont think Barzini even would know how high up Neri and Rocco were at the time, it was being made to look like Rocco was just another made man under Peter and like Turnbull said Neri used to be a cop, further adding to Barzini's thoughts that Mike was weak.

Top
#643845 - 04/14/12 09:26 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: danielperrygin]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
Originally Posted By: danielperrygin
Also i dont think Barzini even would know how high up Neri and Rocco were at the time, it was being made to look like Rocco was just another made man under Peter and like Turnbull said Neri used to be a cop, further adding to Barzini's thoughts that Mike was weak.

Good Point thats why it was suppose to be a secret regime

Top
#643847 - 04/14/12 09:35 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
danielperrygin Offline

Underboss
Registered: 04/05/12
Posts: 578
Barzini world never reach out to Neri, shows how progressive Mike's thinking was, he they are good for business thats all that should matter. I for one would rather my chief enforcer be a guy who accidently lost his temper and hurt somebody, not a heartless murderer.

Top
#643909 - 04/15/12 03:59 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
Danito Offline

Underboss
Registered: 10/08/07
Posts: 1718

Loc: Berlin, Germany
I don't know.
1) I've always felt that Puzo over-stretched here Vito's abilities to foresee future events.
2) Sure, contacting one of Michael's capos could be one option for Barzini. But it was very risky. What if Tessio had pretended to agree with Barzini's deal but told Michael everything? Barzini could not be sure about that.
3) Also, it makes Vito almost godlike to foresee these kind of events in detail.
4) And if they knew Barzini would approach Clemenza or Tesssio, why wouldn't Michael and Tessio simply talk to them about the situation?

Top
#643955 - 04/15/12 07:59 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: Danito]
mustachepete Offline

Underboss
Registered: 03/06/06
Posts: 579

Loc: Falls Church, VA
Originally Posted By: Danito
1) I've always felt that Puzo over-stretched here Vito's abilities to foresee future events.


I think Vito is just supposed to understand that Barzini always works through a screen of somebody else. In the book, of course, they discuss the possibility of Barzini approaching Tom, Carlo, Neri or Rocco, and why they were unlikely candidates.
_________________________
"All of these men were good listeners; patient men."

Top
#643958 - 04/15/12 08:46 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: Danito]
danielperrygin Offline

Underboss
Registered: 04/05/12
Posts: 578
Originally Posted By: Danito
I don't know.
1) I've always felt that Puzo over-stretched here Vito's abilities to foresee future events.
2) Sure, contacting one of Michael's capos could be one option for Barzini. But it was very risky. What if Tessio had pretended to agree with Barzini's deal but told Michael everything? Barzini could not be sure about that.
3) Also, it makes Vito almost godlike to foresee these kind of events in detail.
4) And if they knew Barzini would approach Clemenza or Tesssio, why wouldn't Michael and Tessio simply talk to them about the situation?


1)What do you expect he is the man character but he also is the longest term don in New York so he has seen everything, and can use his experience built over the years to go back over business dealing and politics of the past. He can go through every possible angle now more than ever that Mike is running the day to day operations. They discuss the possibility of everyone in the book.
2)This conflict was going on for a couple of years not just a couple of scenes like in the movie. Barzini had time to go back and fourth over intell collected by his inside man Carlo and look at action on the streets do determine which capo had the most discontent toward Micheal and the family. Obviously he do not just look at the family one day and say i think that guy will turn on Mike.
3)See number 1
4)Micheal was bringing up new guys to move with him to Vages, so this means someone has to be left in charge in New York. By allowing Barzini to attempt a inside move in his family through a man that should be one of Mike's most trusted men of the old guard, he is letting Barzini and the capos make the decision for him, who ever stays loyal when it seems like the dumb thing to do will be Mike's man in NY.

By the way i just wanted to say these statement are my honest opinion, im sorry if i sound like a know it all but i will have an opinion on just about anything when it comes to the godfather, i answer everything because i enjoy the conversation so much, i have been looking for this forum for a long time and want to thank the makers and posters of the forum for making such a great site!

Top
#643971 - 04/15/12 09:59 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
JCrusher Offline

Underboss
Registered: 02/28/10
Posts: 1048
I definetly think Mike is overrated by some people. now i'm not saying he wasn't a capabale don but the guy did make some blunders and was lucky. I mean if vito doesn't tell him that one of his two capos will turn on him mike probably dies. also Roth pretty much outsmarts mike the whole movie in Part 2

Top
#643974 - 04/15/12 10:19 PM Re: Barzini's underestimation of Michael [Re: dontommasino]
danielperrygin Offline

Underboss
Registered: 04/05/12
Posts: 578
In part 2 Mike allows Roth to move freely so he doesnt think Mike suspects him, but he knows Roth is his enemy the whole time. Mike's only goal in part 2 was to find out who betrayed him(and trying to go legit), once he had done that he eliminated his enemy.

Top

Moderator:  Don Cardi, J Geoff, SC, Turnbull