Is Michael really the bad guy? Recently I showed my girlfriend and some friends part 1&2. They really enjoyed both movies but were completely disgusted with Michael's character which left me in total shock lol! Michael is my favourite tragic hero. I tried to defend him but I ended up being out numbered with opinions and ended up looking bad defending a ruthless character haha.


Some evil points were pointed out like: how could Michael kill Fredo?, why does Michael have to kill everyone in his path?, how come Vito was a warm hearted person and Michael was completely the oppisite? In my opinion/defense, Vito left behind a world full of murder,ruthless actions, & death of loved ones killed by enemies his father created. Does Michael deserve to be a cold hearted and ruthless Don? Yes.


Michael may have started out as a nice college boy, but after going through the torture of seeing your father nearly assinated, a new wife blown to pieces, and oldest loving brother slaughtered with bullets..any man would change his own destiny to complete revenge with no mercy. Vito passed on his rath of revenge thourgh Micheal..and suceeded.


Michael killing Freo? Do I agree?..no, but in Michael's life situation..then yes. This is a life/death situation where Fredo failed him as a brother. He would always be a danger to the family as long as he's around.I'm sure Michael could've exiled him somewhere far, but information equals power, which Fredo knows too much and would come back to destroy Michael.


I tried to explain to my friends, Michael's goal is simple: quest for legitimacy and to kill only when necessary in order to keep his family safe for the future.



Did I defend my opinion correctly to them?



Ps

sorry my spelling/grammar sucks

i agree with most of your points but killing your own brother would make him a ruthless charterer. I don't think Fredo was that big of a threat.

Broadly speaking, Michael is a tragic figure, but the tragedy was self-inflicted. He had alternatives to the life he chose at every stage, and his choices sank him.

Quite true.

See i dont agree when people say "poor Michael" or he is a tragic figure. Yes he strated out a good guy but he had choices. I mean i get he wanted to help his dad at first but if he really didnt want to be involved with the mob then he could have relinquished control or the corleones could have left the mob and lived a normal life. Also in Part 2 Mike really had become a cold psychopath. I mean Fredo wasnt a saint but most people knew that he never would try to harm his own family because he is not cold blooded

I think you can make a defense for many of Michael's choices, but not the killing of Fredo.

That action made clear that Michael had gone far beyond his justifications of "protecting his Family" or "seeking legitimacy" into a realm of almost inhuman cold-bloodedness.

The real tragedy was that of the innocents (or slightly less guilty) who suffered becuase of Michael's actions.

Going back to Turnbull's old mantra, the underlying message of the GF Trilogy is "crime doesn't pay." It didn't pay for Vito who lost a son, and saw his empire collapse, an it didn't pay for Michael, who despite his riches, watched his beloved daughter be murdered, and lost the amily he said he was trying to save.

A lot of the rest is atmospherics. Most significantly is the difference between Vito and Michael. A lot of this is generational, and also a result of the very different backgrounds they had. Vito was born in rural Sicily and had to be spirited out of the country to avoid being killed. When he arrives in New York, after spending months on Ellis Island in isolation he was taken in by the Abbanbando family and raised "like a son" .... something he would do for Tom Hagen later in life. He came up as an immigrant/street person and began his career by doing favors for people in exchange for bigger favors and profits. Yes, he murdered Fannuccio as a "favor" to Tessio and Clemenza, but in exchange he gained their loyalty and began what became the successful "Olive Oil Business." But he had a kinder touch as well...indicative are the scenes with people like the fruit vendor who would not let him pay for a piece of fruit, after which VIto told him "if there is anything I can do for you come to me," as well as the whole favor he did for his wife when he got the landlord to allow her friend and her pet to stay in their apartment for reduced rent. For that second favor he never even asked for anything in return.

Micheal on the other hand was born of privilege. He never wanted for anything. Went to the best schools, including an Ivy League college, and was a typical post war corporate director, and thats how he ran the family. Along the way he lost his "common touch" (I doubt he would care about some widow being evicted from an apartment) . So in many ways, his ruthlessness was no greater than Vito's, instead it was just mor out there for everyone to see because he lacked sympathy for others. He was a manipulator who believed the end always justified the means, and was a narcissist who could not see his own shortcomings until it was too late. The tragedy ofMichael was in III when he realized that he was his own undoing.

Was it necessary to have that woman killed just to frame the senator in part 2 ?

Yes, but Fredo didn't even feel remorseful in the boat house. Instead, he outlashed at Michael with rage and jealously even though he alsmot had his "little brother killed"

I never really understood that part. How did the senator help Michael in the end? All he did was made a little speech at the hearings and walked away?

Just because Fredo was not remorseful does not mean he was a threat.

If Michael really felt Fredo was a threat, he would not have been allowed to outlive Mama. And he certainly would not have been allowed to visit the compound.

Fredo was killed out of vengeance, not to protect anyone. That's why the killing laid bare Michael's hypocricy, and why guilt tormented Michael in GFIII.

Well maybe not a direct threat, but Fredo sealed his fate by going against Michael secretly behind his back only to have "something" in it for him. Stupid and selfish, almost resulted the death of the complete Family. Family is family, and Fredo of all people should know best that you stick with blood since he's the only Corleone left as a man.

Michael probably looked at it from a royal emperor point of view, that even your own blood can make assination atempts to take the throne.

But honestly, that is cruel he actually did that to his own brother, but that doesnt make me view michael as an evil character haha

This is Stalinist logic. In the end of GF2 when Tom challenges him, he says that he only wants to kill his enemies. Does he realise that he's the one who has made the rest of the world his enemies?
The tragic is self-inflicted, yes. And that's what real tragedy is all about.

I think Michael may have been ready to give Fredo a pass, but his outburst in the boat house sealed his fate. Fredo not only wasn't repentent, but he tried to justify betraying Michael by admitting he was jealous and resentful; admitted he betrayed him for personal gain ("there was something in it for me"), admitted he witheld valuable info from his brother (Frankie's survival, Questadt belonging to Roth). Hard to not think of Fredo as not only deserving of death, but a threat if kept alive.

As for Geary: I've always believed that Geary helped set Michael up for the perjury rap. As a member of the subcommittee, he had to know that Pentangeli was alive and would be produced as a witness. I believe that, when he asked Cicci if there was always a buffer between him and Michael, he knew Cicci would say, "No, I never talked to him." That would make Michael think that could perjure himself because no one could back up the subcommittee's charges against him.

Agree with all your points TB plus, as I have posted before, Fredo lied to Mike in the boathouse scene. He sais he didn't know it would be a hit. He knew.

How do you figure that? Remember when Johnny ola called him and Fredo specifically said, "You guys lied to me"

I think the lie was that there was something in it or Fredo. They never gave him anything.

I dont buy that at all it doesnt fit with Fredo's character. Fredo is a womanizer and an idiot but he probably the only corleone brother who has a soul lol and he cares about his family. Mike by part 2 had become a psychopath with no empathy for anybody

How does Fredo care about his family when he witheld vital information from Michael about the senate hearings? Michael is not a psychopath, the people around him was inflicting his dark emotions. Think about it,

Connie: Doesn't respect Michael for killing her psycho husband who kills her brother (Sonny)

Fredo: Almost kills the whole family and witheld information to back Michael up

Kay: Aborts the baby

So who is truly loyal to Michael? Tom?..that's about it.

Look I love the godfather but characters like mike make me sick because they are murderers. Look Im not saying Fredo is a saint but he is much more humane than Mike is

Yes, that's about it.

With one caveat: Only when it suits Michael.

I agree too about murderers, I was just opinionating if I was in Michaels shoes haha. But in reality, Michael was a fine gentleman from the very beginning. His love to protect his family is what started his life of crime. Such a sad story though, he became so powerful & sucessful yet depressing at the same time.

It's no wonder Vito didn't want this life for him.

I agree with JCrusher - "The Godfather" has an interesting story, but there are not enough foul words in this world do describe Michael and other main characters. I hate Michael even more than Vito because, apart from being a criminal, he is a hypocrite: he pretended to be "different" at the beginning, but then started to behave himself like those criminals he initially wanted to distance himself from.

See this is where i disagree. Many people say "Poor Mike" or tragic character. He is not tragic really. Mike made his choices and he made bad choices so i dont feel bad for him. You reap what you sow. Sure he started off good but then he was seduced by power/greed and by part 2 he became a cold controlling psychopath.

Mike Corleone and Tony Sorprano are both evil characters but since they are main characters people seem to forgive them for their faults lol

Lets say you were Michael right after killing sollozzo, how would you handle the family empire after that? Who else could Vito pass it along to? Sonny is dead, fredo will jump on that opprutuinty but ultimately destroy the family. Tom is not real Corleone blood.

First of all i wouldnt. Being in the mafia is not a good way to be living and plus i would never kill. I mean if mike really wanted to be legit he could have handed over the reigns to others and kept his family out of the life

Obviously the family goes to Michael to answer the last question.

What is not expressed often is Michael's total lack of humanity. Characters like Vito Corleone, and Tony Soprano and Nucky Thompson, others are bad guys, but they have an element of humanity to them. They show compassion, and they have subordinates who are loyal to them out of something more than fear. Michael has none of that. Everything he does is calculated and he always has an agenda. He is never kind for the sake of being kind. It is no surprise he ends up alone with no friends or family.

Actually Vito Corleone is the only one who has somewhat morals. He is still a murderer but he doesnt go as far as the others. Nucky and Tony are both egotistical, cheaters, killers, and would sell out anybody if they had to. although i agree with you mike says he does evil things for hhis "family" but yet he hurts his family