Why did Michael fail where Vito succeeded?

April 2, 2009 3:28 PM

What's the difference between Michael and Vito in the Godfather trilogy?

I'm rewatching the Godfather series on Blu-Ray, and one nagging question occurs to me: what's different about Michael that causes his life as Godfather to be ultimately empty, insofar as his pursuit of power to protect and enrich his family destroys that family in the end?

Vito starts from nothing as an orphan entering the U.S. through Ellis Island, and dies a happy death in his dotage, playing with his grandson amongst his tomatoes, having built a family empire that he's passed on to his natural successor, Michael. He's lost Santino, but that's arguably Sonny's fault for being impulsive and manipulable at a time when Vito is incapacitated, and that's the only serious loss Vito faces.

At the end of each movie, though, Michael is shown having lost part of the family for whom he's doing it all: in the first, the door is closed on Kay, revealing the truth to her about Michael's role in Carlo's death and starting her alienation from him that culminates in part II with Kay aborting Michael's second son; in the second, Michael sits alone in a cold, barren Nevada landscape after having his brother murdered; in the third, Michael holds his dying daughter, killed by a bullet meant for him.

Michael is as smart and brutal as Vito was, and is very successful over the course of his life in building wealth and power and destroying his enemies. Arguably, he's more successful--Vito was shot and the family nearly destroyed, while Michael is never so much as scratched. And Michael succeeds in legitimizing the family business, getting out of the vice rackets on which Vito built the family empire. Yet it's all for naught, because the family for whom he does this is driven away by it, if not killed. In terms of Michael's life, it makes sense because the connection is always drawn between his actions and the resulting problem with his family; it just doesn't make sense with the contrast to Vito's story that's especially prominent in part II.

What am I missing?

posted by fatbird to media & arts (40 comments total)

The Corleone's were more respected under Vito but more powerful under Michael. In both the movie and book the idea that it's "business, not personal" is repeated several times, but at a key point in the book, Michael says "It's all personal" contradicting his earlier statements. I think Michael lead the family in a quest for power, and partly to prove himself to be an adequate successor to his father, while Vito lead the family simply as a way to provide for and protect his family. Michael's different goals lead him to be harder, colder, less forgiving and eventually alienated him from his family.
posted by bluejayk at 3:36 PM on April 2

Just to get the ball rolling here, the Godfather trilogy has a lot to do with the American dream - forgoing tradition for the new way of doing things, rampant capitalism, etc. So, to a degree, what we see start with Vito continues to an extreme where Michael cannot even protect his nuclear family & ends with him dying alone, ultimately unable to protect or care about anyone but himself. I'd say that Michael is trapped in a device of Vito's construction & his only hope is to continue in the formula.
posted by Dmenet at 3:37 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

In kind of the same vain of Dmenet's answer, Vito's character is an immigrant who came to America and had to struggle just to survive, Michael is a child of privilege who needs to create a role for himself in post-WWII society. I think the contrast between the two is interesting partly because the person who suffered so much while young and had no advantages is happier than the person who was given everything.
posted by bluejayk at 3:43 PM on April 2 [2 favorites]

Assimilation, legitimacy, authenticity.

Michael Corleone is a son of America, and the question of legitimacy -- legitimacy in terms of what? to the dominant culture? to family? to the nature of the family business? to self? -- is more pronounced for him than his father.

Or, what Dmenet said.
posted by holgate at 3:48 PM on April 2

Just to get the ball rolling here, the Godfather trilogy has a lot to do with the American dream - forgoing tradition for the new way of doing things...

This underlying theme is discussed by Coppola in the recent Vanity Fair article: The Godfather Wars.

"He decided it should be not a film about organized crime but a family chronicle, a metaphor for capitalism in America."

posted by ericb at 3:51 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

So the difference is in circumstances, not in character, and Michael's dying alone is part of a cycle of children destroying what their parents build?
posted by fatbird at 3:51 PM on April 2

Yet it's all for naught, because the family for whom he does this.

I've never taken Michael at his word for that. I know he says it a lot, but the impression I remember is that he's doing it for his father, maybe, but as for his actual living family... just business.
posted by rokusan at 3:51 PM on April 2

So the difference is in circumstances, not in character, and Michael's dying alone is part of a cycle of children destroying what their parents build?

I'm not sure about that.

Remember that Vito lost his own son to violence far before Michael did, and he never really recovered from his gunshot wounds. But I think overall your point stands.

I would say that Vito loved his family and so he gained power, and that Michael loved power and so he used his family.

Michael pushes his family away. He tried pushing the entire family away by joining the Army, and then by bringing home a WASP-y American girl. When he goes to the hospital, he does save his father's life, but his love for his family is mixed with a combination of both his realization that he is good at this game, and the anger that he feels at the police captain for the attack, to motivates his revenge hit.

He lies to Kate: that's how he loses her. He kills his own brother. And his son dies because he can't stop his power grabs while already insanely wealthy.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:53 PM on April 2

It's hard to blame Vito for Sonny's death--he was incapacitated, and it was Sonny's own weaknesses that were to blame for him being trapped and killed. Solazzo has a point when he says to Hagen "Could I have gotten the old man five or ten years ago?" So there's some argument to be made that Vito had gotten soft; but that was, after all, his purpose, to create a stable and happy family life, and doing what was necessary to make it so.

I read the book many, many years ago, but I seem to recall that it emphasized that Michael really was in it for the same reasons his father was: you get power to protect your family, that family is all important. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.
posted by fatbird at 4:00 PM on April 2

I thought the turning point in Michael's development was when his first wife died due to the car bomb. That was what made him hard and cold. Vito could be brutal but he never forgot how to love. I'm not sure that Michael ever loved again after that.

Yes, he remarried. He had kids. But I think that after the car bomb he treated love as weakness.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:14 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

First, unlike Michael, Vito never struggles with or doubts who he is -- he just simply knows, so he has a much more stable, simple sense of identity, which is interesting in someone who is deprived of his name and some of his heritage.

Not only are Vito and Michael men of different eras, but, possibly even more important, Mama Corleone and Kay are VASTLY different women of different times, ethnic, and class backgrounds. Can we even imagine Mama having Kay's (or even Connie's) privileges, choices, attitudes, or reactions? That makes an enormous difference in the ways these guys "run" and relate to their families and how they see their roles in family life. Whereas Apollonia was essentially Mama Corleone, Jr.
posted by FelliniBlank at 4:24 PM on April 2

You may have something there, Fellini: an interesting bit that I remember from the book is Connie calling up Mama Corleone to complain about Carlo beating her, and to ask how she handled Vito's beating. Mama Corleone replies that she was never beaten, because she never did anything to deserve it. Very definite contrast between old world and new world attitudes.
posted by fatbird at 4:28 PM on April 2

Michael really was in it for the same reasons his father was: you get power to protect your family, that family is all important. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.

Well, was he really interested in protecting his family? I mean, if he was, he sure didn't show it with his wife or his brother. That scene in Godfather, Part 2 near the end where he literally shuts the door in her face… you think Vito would have ever done that?

Michael was just too driven to power, not as a means of protecting one's family and friends, but as an end unto itself. That's my take, anyway.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:32 PM on April 2

Don't underestimate FelliniBlank's very astute observation about Mama Corleone and Kay. Mama Corleone was OK with Vito. Kay resents everything Micheal has become which contributes to his sense of identity.
posted by Silvertree at 4:33 PM on April 2

He tried pushing the entire family away by joining the Army, and then by bringing home a WASP-y American girl.

And there's the bind: the army and Kay open the door to the kind of mainstream life that Vito imagines for his son: Senator Corleone, Governor Corleone. Except that that's always an abstraction. The immigrant saga begins with the tension between a blank slate of a new home and the traditions that get carried across; the children of immigrants face a new tension in which every step towards the dominant culture can be perceived as a rejection of the inherited one, even as the inherited one essentially passes with the elder generation.

You can make the argument that "for family" becomes a kind of acting-out, a justifying gloss for actions that become increasingly detached from what seems to be their origin -- even as the juxtaposition of young Vito and Michael in Part II suggests both a continuity in terms of fundametal brutality, and a discontinuity in terms of scale. Michael may not be a Senator, but he has one in the palm of his hand.

Sicily is definitely a pivot: it underwrites the fact that Michael can't remake his life there, can't escape his own past, but doesn't belong to his father's.
posted by holgate at 4:33 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

I've pondered the same basic question. Vito, was a good father and husband, despite growing up without any such role model. Michael, who had Vito as his model, was a poor father and husband.

The only cause I can kind of point to: Michael was supposed to be the "bigshot". Vito had dreams of him being the one in Congress, or some gubbernatorial manse, pulling the strings on "little guys" like Vito. Michael gave that dream away when he told Sonny and the others he would be the one to take out Sollazo an McClusky. Neither Vito or Michael speak about it, in any of the following films, but that's the failing between them. Michael idolized his father. He was the chosen son of his father. But he let him down when he had his fathers biggest unfulfilled dream within his reach. And for no other reason than (perhaps) pique over a broken jaw. He spends the rest of his life trying to amend that first mistake, and the frustration of his failure is what closes him off from his family. Maybe
posted by MetalDog at 4:41 PM on April 2

Forgot to add, Love the question, and there are some great responses here too!
posted by MetalDog at 4:45 PM on April 2

"So the difference is in circumstances, not in character, and Michael's dying alone is part of a cycle of children destroying what their parents build?"
posted by fatbird at 9:51 AM

In my view, it was entirely circumstances.

Vito lived in the first half of the 20th century. There were different values then. The First World War was the sort of war where people would shoot at each other from across the trenches but when Christmas or Easter pulled round, these bitter enemies would lay down arms, meet on the battlefield and share drinks and smokes with one another. WW2, which Michael fought in, had none of this sort of stuff. It was kill, or be killed, and Michael's perceptions of how the world operated was undoubtedly influenced by his experiences in the war, just as Vito's operations were influenced by the time he grew up and lived in.

So the notion mentioned up-thread that to Vito it was "just business, nothing personal" is quite correct, because this matches his upbringing in a more innocent time. He did what he did to provide for his family and his business associates. In the end, this would be Vito's undoing. The fact that he refused to trade in narcotics, despite the lucrative nature of this trade, results in an attack on him by Don Sollozzo, a mobster much younger than Corleone (and probably only slightly older than Michael at the time) who wants to trade in narcotics. This is perhaps the most obvious example of how the differing generations of Mafioso treated the business they worked in.

Michael went to WW2 because he didn't like the family business. He wanted to be his own man and never be involved with what the rest of his family did. But that didn't mean he didn't love his family. He loved them very much. The only reason he got involved in the family business in the first place was to protect his father and get revenge on those that tried to murder him. Once he was completely involved in the business, his ultimate goal was to legitimise the family, thus ensuring that his family and business associates were looked after, but that they were looked after by legitimate business interests. This is in tune with his dislike of the family business, but his love of the family.

But because he was from a new generation of mobsters, and fought in a war where the fighting and killing never stopped despite what time of year it was, he, unlike his father, thought it was all personal. And in his goal of legitimising the family, he would do whatever it took, kill whoever he had to kill, to make sure it happened. He thought the ends justified the means. This gained him more enemies than his father in a time where having enemies was more dangerous than ever. In the end, this would be his undoing.

The other circumstance that hurt Michael was his choice of wife. Vito chose Carmella as his wife, a traditional Italian woman who accepted the life of her husband and prayed for him every day. Michael initially chose Apollonia, a traditional Italian woman much like his mother. But she was killed by Michael's enemies, while pregnant with his child. This affected Michael deeply and would be pivotal later in his life.

When he returned to America he married Kay, a non-traditional, non-Italian, non-Catholic woman who could not accept what Michael did, and so Michael had to hide that from her, something Vito never had to do with Carmella. When Kay found out what he did, this affected their relationship deeply but she stayed with Michael (and converted to Catholicism) because he had promised to legitimise the family. But then she made a fateful decision; she had an abortion, out of fear that a male heir would see Michael stall his promise to legitimise the family. When Michael found out she had an abortion, his deeply Catholic upbringing combined with his memories of Apollonia's death while carrying his child, saw him fly into a rage that would ultimately drive he and Kay to divorce.

So in the end, the reason why Vito died successful and surrounded by family was because he was born and raised in a more innocent time, conducted business with honour and he had a wife and family who accepted what he did.

Michael died alone and relatively unsuccessful (compared at least to his father) because he was born in raised in a time of war, because he couldn't accept what he did and what he was born into and neither could his wife or his kids. Because of this internal and external conflict, Michael's attempts to change what he was and what he did, often without honour, would lead to his attempts to legitimise fail, his family to leave him and his daughter to die. And he would die alone.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:46 PM on April 2 [3 favorites]

holgate: Sicily is definitely a pivot: it underwrites the fact that Michael can't remake his life there, can't escape his own past, but doesn't belong to his father's.

This is the key to me: Vito is a Sicilian. Michael is an American. Witness the first scene in the first film, which is essential thematically. There, you can see that the first Godfather is about the limitations of democracy and the draw that power has for those who want to protect their families and create justice. The second film - the best of the trilogy, I believe - is about the difficult complexities that the children of immigrants, who can no longer exist as pure descendants of their parents' traditions, have to face, and about the limitations that that pursuit of power finally meets. Vito has none of the problems that Michael has because his role makes sense to him; he is a 'man of honor,' one of the mafiosi, steeped in family and tradition, and he can live the difficult lifestyle because his priorities, his habits, his very mannerisms are a matter of tradition and honor. Michael is an American; he is something new, and living the lifestyle requires so much dedication and single-mindedness that he must pursue the power to the exclusion of all else.

Incidentally, one interesting thing about the films is that they are closer to true history than one might imagine (a Corleonesi) was 'boss of bosses' in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and came to the US to consolidate his empire here, as well). The most significant departure, I've always thought, is that there was no Michael character; there was no hybrid who had to fight to balance his American sensibilities with his Sicilian heritage. While the 'men of honor' have fallen on tougher times recently, they would've been gone much earlier if they had had to deal with such a dramatic and difficult mixing of cultures.
posted by koeselitz at 5:06 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

Of course, I shouldn't imply that the mafia is gone. I mean, they do own the Italian Prime Minister, so...
posted by koeselitz at 5:09 PM on April 2

Also, the theme of the third movie is a director who is past his prime being completely blind to his daughter's total lack of any kind of acting skills.
posted by koeselitz at 5:10 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

The First World War was the sort of war where people would shoot at each other from across the trenches but when Christmas or Easter pulled round, these bitter enemies would lay down arms, meet on the battlefield and share drinks and smokes with one another. WW2, which Michael fought in, had none of this sort of stuff. It was kill, or be killed, and Michael's perceptions of how the world operated was undoubtedly influenced by his experiences in the war, just as Vito's operations were influenced by the time he grew up and lived in.

But Vito grew up on the run for his life, his brother and father both murdered by lupara-wielding thugs. He watched his mother be murdered. He didn't really grow up in a more innocent time. And if you're going by the book, Vito was capable of throwing an infant into a fire for a friend.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:14 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

What's different about Michael that causes his life as Godfather to be ultimately empty

Michael tried to be his father and failed; Vito tried to be himself and succeeded.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:22 PM on April 2 [4 favorites]

The difference between Michael and Vito is the difference between family and "family." Vito cared at least as much about his flesh-and-blood family--including adopted son Tom Hagen--than he did his crime family. Michael sacrificed his family in the name of saving his "family."

To me the story of the Godfather movies (1 and 2, there was no 3) is the transformation of Michael Corleone from the wide-eyed and -collared squeaky-clean war hero to the soulless, shark-like automaton at the end of Part II. I've always taken the final shot of Part II as him dying, but it doesn't matter whether or not he dies physically because his soul is dead (hence no need for an imaginary part 3). The key moment in Michael's transformation is in 1 in the hospital when he tells Vito "I'm with you now," meaning both he's physically there and he's choosing the gang life (which is why Vito cries).

Maybe Michael's challenges were more difficult than Vito's, though. Vito's threats were all external. Carlo was both a brother-in-law and a member of the crime family, and he betrayed Vito and set him up to be murdered. Michael has him killed, I believe only after getting Carlo to confess, even though it devastates his sister. Fredo's his actual brother, is complicit (probably duped) in an attempt on Michael's life, and Michael's warned him not to go against the family--an early example of Michael putting "family" above family. The only human element to his ordering Fredo's death is putting it off while their mother is alive. Would Vito have had his own brother-in-law and brother killed?

I think Carlo had to die he knew he was setting Vito up to be killed and was only by luck/poor marksmanship that Vito survived the hit. Fredo, I believe inadvertently, allowed Johnny Ola to try and kill Michael because Fredo wanted a seat at the table. His bitterness at being passed over is a serious problem, which Michael never mitigates, but personally I think Fredo's too much of a fuckup to be a serious threat and Michael could've let him live. Having him killed is too much of a by-the-book, the rules say betray the "family" and you die thing.

The difference between Mama Corleone and Kay also partially explains the difference between Vito and Michael. Mama Corleone turned a blind eye towards her husband's business, and Kay was incapably of doing that, so Michael had to lie. Mama Corleone would never have asked Vito the questions Kay did. (Although Mama does get Vito to terrify the slum landlord into reducing the old lady's rent.)

she had an abortion, out of fear that a male heir would see Michael stall his promise to legitimise the family

There already was a male heir.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:33 PM on April 2

So the notion mentioned up-thread that to Vito it was "just business, nothing personal" is quite correct, because this matches his upbringing in a more innocent time.

Except that when Vito travels to Sicily to arrange for olive oil to import, he takes time to murder Don Ciccio, the Don who had his father and brother killed, and from whom he ran to America. At the time he takes his revenge, Ciccio is old, almost deaf, and basically on death's door. There's zero practical need for Vito to kill him; it's all revenge. I don't know if this is supposed to indicate "you can take the boy out of Sicily..." for Vito, or simply that he was more appropriately brutal than Michael.

Thinking back, the way the entire slate of enemies dies at the end of each film does seem bloodthirsty and somewhat unnecessary; this is echoed earlier in Part II when Tom Hagen says "Are you going to kill everyone?", to which Michael replies "just my enemies". It doesn't matter whether they're a real threat, they're an enemy, and so must die.

Vito, by comparison, makes peace with Tataglia and Barzini because, though they're enemies, the state of war is worse.
posted by fatbird at 5:39 PM on April 2

I think Carlo had to die he knew he was setting Vito up to be killed and was only by luck/poor marksmanship that Vito survived the hit.

Carlo sets up Sonny, not Vito, by beating Connie and triggering Sonny's temper, which gets Sonny off the compound ahead of his men, allowing him to be ambushed at the tollway. Paulie sets up Vito, and is quickly killed by Clemenza's man (Rocco Lampone, who laters kills Hyman Roth and dies in the attempt) after they go look for places in New York to "go to the mattresses".
posted by fatbird at 5:43 PM on April 2

Carlo sets up Sonny, not Vito

OMGodfather Fail. I am so ashamed.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:30 PM on April 2

The most crucial scene regarding Michael, in my opinion, is the scene in part 2 where he asks Mama Corleone "can a man do so much for his family that he loses it?", to which she replies "you can never lose your family." That's exactly what happens to him, though: he does so much for his family that he loses it.

I've always seen the Godfather films (for me, the story ends with Fredo's death: I consider part 3 to be on the level of fan fiction with the sole exception of the final scene, where Michael bitterly remembers everything he's lost before dying alone) as the story of a wise and powerful king (Don Vito) and his three sons who would inherit his kingdom, each possessing one crucial part of him but lacking another: Sonny, who has his strength and passion, but is rash and too quick to act, leading to his downfall. Fredo, who has his kind heart, but is weak and easily manipulated, leading to his downfall. And finally Michael, who has his ruthlessness and his calculating mind, but is cold and dispassionate, leading to his downfall.

Also, all the comments about Old World vs. New World mentality are spot on as well.
posted by DecemberBoy at 7:53 PM on April 2 [11 favorites]

Vito, by comparison, makes peace with Tataglia and Barzini because, though they're enemies, the state of war is worse.

No, Vito makes the peace so they will be lulled into complacency while he and Michael plan the bloodbath that takes them both out.

I love DecemberBoy's take on the three sons having Vito's three key strengths - but split between them.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:01 PM on April 2 [1 favorite]

I think Vito represents more a Keynesian mix of Socialism and Capitalism. His motivation was more societal. He seemed to have more of a for the community vibe.

Micheal was much more Capitalist. Its only business.
posted by mary8nne at 2:14 AM on April 3

I think a couple key scenes for this are the flashback at the end of part II, and the scene in part I where Sonny tells Michael that everyone was proud of him for being a war hero. (That was Sonny, wasn't it? Or was it Tom?)

Michael loves his family, but he also harbors a little resentment for not being taken seriously. He's the kid brother; nobody expects him to go into the business. Nobody thinks of him as powerful, as a provider. So he has this need to prove himself to the family--to command their respect--which Vito doesn't have. When Michael and Vito are talking in the garden, man-to-man, as equals, that's about the happiest you ever see Michael in either movie.
posted by equalpants at 5:43 AM on April 3

I like what DecemberBoy said up there about the three sons each having a fatal flaw. But what about the adopted son, Tom Hagen? He was from outside the tradition, outside the ethnicity, outside the family- but I think he might have really done a bang-up job had he been Vito's successor. He had none of the three brother's fatal flaws, and many of their better qualities.

I think, though, that Michael's coldness and dispassion weren't inherent, but began to develop after the attempt on Vito's life. Someone upthread said that he began to view love as a liability, and I think that's spot-on. But he supressed it because he did love too much, and with a passion to rival Sonny's.

All the sons were in the unfortunate position to see both the business and personal sides of their father, and they each found it hard to reconcile the two.

This is a great thread.
posted by Shohn at 5:51 AM on April 3

but personally I think Fredo's too much of a fuckup to be a serious threat and Michael could've let him live. Having him killed is too much of a by-the-book, the rules say betray the "family" and you die thing.

I don't think Fredo had to be killed because of what he did, but because of what letting him live would say to the other families. You let him live and they think you've gotten weak and are ripe for the picking. It's as much a PR move as anything vindictive.
posted by juv3nal at 4:15 PM on April 3

But what about the adopted son, Tom Hagen? He was from outside the tradition, outside the ethnicity, outside the family- but I think he might have really done a bang-up job had he been Vito's successor.

This is an interesting insight: Tom is the one who truly embodies the "it's only business" aspect of it. He gets crapped on for not being a wartime consigliere by both Sonny and Michael, but in both cases those two are flawed in their use of violence--Sonny for being too impulsive, and Michael for going too far.

Tom has the capacity for brtuality: After the attempt on Michael's life in part II, he leaves the family in Tom's care. When Senator Geary is compromised by waking up to a dead hooker, the strong implication is that it was a setup by the Corleone family that Tom organized. He can use violence tactically, but he's fully internalized that the point is to make money for family, not to destroy your enemies.
posted by fatbird at 7:54 PM on April 3

Tom has the capacity for brtuality: After the attempt on Michael's life in part II, he leaves the family in Tom's care. When Senator Geary is compromised by waking up to a dead hooker, the strong implication is that it was a setup by the Corleone family that Tom organized.

Not to mention the whole horse's head thing! I love how subtle they are about showing that Tom is a crazy motherfucker. He's pretty low-key most of the time, but man, take a look at the smirk on his face when he's sending Tessio away.
posted by equalpants at 5:46 AM on April 4

Vito believes that you are either a puppet or a puppet master. to
be a puppet master you must be strong. He believes that in the old
world, strong means violent, and in the new world, strong means
wealthy and politically powerful.

Vito is charismatic and extroverted. As he gains power through
violence, the effects of this charisma are heightened: people want
to love and be loved by him, much like a president.

Vito wants his sons to be strong men, not puppets of the big shots
of the church, the wealthy, or the violent.

Vito wants his sons to be strong in the American way, and also in
the Sicilian way.

Michael is a thoughtful, introverted person who is not especially
interested in other people, and does not form strong emotional
attachments to others.

Michael, before the war, when he is in college, perhaps believes
that you can not be a puppet, and also not be a puppetmaster, that
you can break out of that paradigm. He sees his father as unenlightened,
and would like to emulate civilzed men. He is ashamed of his father's
crude methods and outlook.

Michael after the war perhaps sees the civilized men are not so
civilized, and that perhaps his father is right.

Michael sees after the attempt on his father's life that "no man
is an island", and that he must participate in this world of puppets
and puppet masters in order to protect the people he loves and
respects, chief among them his father, who he has come to realize
is a greater and wiser man than any of his college peers/professors.
His murder of the Turk and the policeman is his expression of love,
and to show his father that he respects him on his own terms, at
the end of his own emotional journey to maturity. Vito, knowing
Michael to be his wisest son, sees in this to some extent an
affirmation of his entire manhood/fatherhood experience.

Michael is now ashamed of his youthful shame of his father, and now
picks up his fathers life mission as his own as a way of proving
to himself and his father his love and acceptance of this person,
the only person he has loved and respected.

In Sicily, when Michael falls in love with Appolonia, he opens an
emotionally vulnerable side of himself to her. I believe that at
this point, had his wife lived, Michael could have become a more
complete man emotionally. I believe that he was comfortable being
emotionally vulnerable to his wife, and that this experience could
have improved his ability to feel empathy for, and inspire loyalty
in, other people.

Appolonia's murder seems to have inspired an emotional self-protection
instinct in Michael that prevents him from making emotional connections
with other people. This cripples Michael as a leader. His lack of
charisma and ability to inspire love in others is wiped out. He can
only rule through fear. The murder of Santino cannot have helped
this process.

Michael's reaching out to Kay is coldly calculated to further his
father's dreams of Americanizing the Family. Kay can give him white
male heirs who can "pass" in racist America.

Michael's motivation is to redeem his father as a great man, as an
equal of the great civilized men of history. Michael's use of
violence towards these ends, combined with his introversion and
coldness, inspires hate and fear rather than love in the people
around him.

I've not seem GF3.
posted by popechunk at 8:45 AM on April 4 [2 favorites]

All in the Family

“‘The Mafia is a peculiar thing,’ says Talia Shire [Coppola's sister who played Connie Corleone in the Godfather] sitting in her Bel Air home. ‘It’s the underworld. It’s interesting to look on the dark side. But in this darkness there is the Vito Corleone family. Remember when Vito says, “There’s drugs,’’ which he didn’t want to touch? He’s a decent man on the dark side, who is struggling to emerge into the light and bring his family there. That’s what makes it dramatically interesting.’

‘There’s one reason that movie is successful and one reason only: it may be the greatest family movie ever made,’ says [producer] Al Ruddy. ‘It’s a great tragedy of a man and the son he worships, the son who embodied all the hopes he had for his future. ‘I never wanted this for you, Michael.’ Ruddy has switched into a dead-on impression of Brando as the Don, pouring his heart out to his youngest son: ‘I thought that when it was your time that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Corleone. Governor Corleone.’

Ruddy sighs. ‘That was his dream. But what happened? The kid is put into the fucking line to save his father’s life, and he becomes a gangster, too. It’s heartbreaking.’”

posted by ericb at 1:10 PM on April 4

Vito: Family first.

Michael: 'Business' first.

As in : "No one ever said on their deathbed, 'I wish I'd spent more time at the office.'"
posted by ericb at 1:15 PM on April 4

But what about the adopted son, Tom Hagen? He was from outside the tradition, outside the ethnicity, outside the family- but I think he might have really done a bang-up job had he been Vito's successor.

I have to say, I sort of love DecemberBoy's take onthe sons as parts of Vito, but with parts missing. And Hagen has a serious one: he has no gravitas. Even Fredo knows how to organize a party, show people a good time. Tom's no leader, in any respect. He's born to be the man behind the throne.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:25 PM on April 4

Vito can love, although his ability extends only to his own family, especially his children and grandchildren. Michael cannot, at least not after his first wife goes kaboom. So Michael is empty. No amount of money can stand in for his complete inability to care for anyone but himself.
posted by bearwife at 7:04 PM on August 30