Movie Discussion: The Godfather

[xipotec]

Respecting that our forum love discussing films, I am going to pick a classic every so often to discuss and dissect.

To get started are the following prompts.


1. Was Vito correct in his decision to not partner with Sollozzo?

2. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael? Why or why not?

3. What would Don Vito have thought of Michael?s choices?

4. What was Michael?s real motivation when he decided to take over the family?

Have at it !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SwedishHeat]

1. Was Vito correct in his decision to not partner with Sollozzo?

2. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael? Why or why not?

3. What would Don Vito have thought of Michael?s choices?

4. What was Michael?s real motivation when he decided to take over the family?

Well, Vito had his principles, so it was good that he stuck with them, but in the real world, drugs were the future, and he probably should gone that route.

Sonny? No. I mean, they killed him right off the bat. Too hot-headed, never would've worked.

Vito of course would've been upset with Michael. Killing Fredo was a bad, bad thing. Even Michael realized that in time. Family was the most important thing to Vito. Realistically, Vito would've made sure that Fredo was doing something important, or at least felt valued. Fredo never would've had to betray the family if Michael had behaved properly and treated Fredo with respect. Vito had respect for all this sons. Michael really screwed up by messing with things in Vegas.

I think Michael was motivated by revenge/vengeance. My assumption is that Michael has a bit of PTSD from the war, and all he knows is killing/violence to solve problems, whereas Vito tries to negotiate. We know he left the family to go to college, then joined the Marines. So I think Michael ran things how he thought the mob was run, just through violence, since that's really all he knows, from what he read and what he experienced in WW2. I'm not sure how much he was exposed to before he left.

During his time in Sicily, he learned more about the violent nature of his family. Of course, his brother was murdered and his father narrowly survived assassination. In the very short time he spent back with his family, all he knew was violence, so that's what he did in kind.

I will say, I don't think we know enough about how Vito ran the family. The flashbacks in Part II show he's a fairly benevolent, reasonable person, but there's 30-40 years that we don't see. I assume he's a fairly benevolent ruler, and not prone to violence, but he may have had many people murdered. He may have been violent in front of Michael, but we just don't know enough.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

IMO, the best film ever made. Part 2 is almost as good.

1. Was Vito correct in his decision to not partner with Sollozzo?

Yes.

2. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael? Why or why not?

Hell no! That's why he's dead. He was a hot head. It was shown when Vito told him, "Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again." Too emotional to be a boss.


4. What was Michael?s real motivation when he decided to take over the family?

If I go by just the first film, then I would say his motivation was to keep his family safe and to eventually move his family business into a legitimate business, which he did in the sequels. That's what he tells Vito anyways, but it goes deeper than that.

At the end of GF part 2, in the flashback scene Michael tells his family that he joined the military. He's told that his father had plans for him. Tom Hagen tells Michael that he and Vito talked many times about Michael's future, and Michael responds, "You talked to my father about my future. MY future." I think part of Michael's motivation was to rebel against his father plans. Also, Sonny tells Michael that the people of the United States are not his people and that Michael should not fight other people's war. Michael tells Sonny that he doesn't feel that way. Clearly a lot of Italians at that time did not feel American and were treated as second class citizens. Vito wanted Michael to go into politics and become governor, basically to assimilate and be outside of the family business because he wanted something better for his son, which Michael responds, "We'll get there." So I think Michael's motivation was to be his own man and for his family to assimilate because he probably felt just as American as anyone else. When we first meet Michael he tells his girlfriend about his family business and he says, "That's my family. That's not me." Later on, he justifies all his killing by saying that Politicians and the President kill people too....you know, the "real Americans." So anyways, I think he made peace with his family and doesn't view it as less American than any other business, but his ultimate goal is full assimilation for his children and family because he knows that his family business is viewed by society negatively. Taking over the family is just a means to an end for Michael, IMO.

 

[ajp4mgs]

1.) I'm with Clown Prince on this one: Vito made the right call. Getting the Corleone family mixed in with the drug game likely would've gone south eventually, and Vito might've ended up getting marginalized by being involved in something he never wanted to be a part of. Plus, the only reason trouble escalated was because of Sonny. As Clown pointed out, Sonny should've kept his thoughts within the family inner circle. That way, Sollozzo wouldn't have seen an opportunity in taking Vito out. Vito's decision could've worked out fine if not for Sonny's lack of control.

2.) I agree with both of the earlier responses: Not a chance. Sonny's temperament would've kept them at war perpetually, and his lack of intellect would've lost the family too many of the battles. Michael was incredibly effective, but got undone by the incompetence of others (an idiot brother and other inferior lackeys).

3.) Aside from the Fredo decision, I'm not sure how Vito would view the level of Michael's ruthlessness in general. That's a tough one. But he'd have to be proud of him as a strategist and as an executive leader who commanded respect. Michael made a ton of right moves and showed remarkable business instincts.

4.) Duty was the motivation, imo. An ailing father and slain brother to honor. Michael wanted to do right by them and preserve a true family legacy. But the taste of power proved too tempting and corrupting, and led to crossing lines that he probably never would've thought possible when he first took over from his father.

Random thought: I actually never hated the third movie as much as most people, but when I got the recently released "Coda" edition, it made all of the flaws even worse for me. This edit was supposed to streamline the narrative, but for whatever reason it just made me lose what respect I had for the stronger elements of the film. I really wish I hadn't watched it.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The one thing I never understood is how Michael was able to take over the family when he wasn't even a made man? You have to be at least made before you can rise through the ranks, from associate, to soldier, to Capo, to underboss....etc.

 

[ajp4mgs]

The one thing I never understood is how Michael was able to take over the family when he wasn't even a made man? You have to be at least made before you can rise through the ranks, from associate, to soldier, to Capo, to underboss....etc.

Wasn't Michael a made man by virtue of being Vito's son? And then he was more or less acting as a soldier in the restaurant.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Wasn't Michael a made man by virtue of being Vito's son? And then he was more or less acting as a soldier in the restaurant.

My guess, he was made in Italy or shortly after returning from Italy, but they didn't show it. They should have tho. Maybe they couldn't go into those kind of details back in the 1970s? Or maybe things worked differently in the 1940s and 50s.

 

[JAWS]

1. Was Vito correct in his decision to not partner with Sollozzo?

Ummm.. Drugs are bad M'kay

Vito died with a sad heart but a clear conscience. I think he would have lost respect for himself had he gotten into the drug biz.

2. Would Sonny have made a better Don than Michael? Why or why not?

It would have been a blood bath

3. What would Don Vito have thought of Michael?s choices?

I think its right there in Godfather part II and the difference in the two's rise to power. Michael basically ended up a villain. I mean they were all "bad guys" but Michael went too far. He was not the man his father was. Really he was a blend of his father and Sonny. He had his fathers brains and cunning but really he made a lot of choices that Sonny would have made. Only in a much more patient and strategic way.

4. What was Michael?s real motivation when he decided to take over the family?

Protect the family was the original motivation. I believe that Michael wanted to go legit but would not take no for an answer and lacked the integrity that his father did.

Vito looked out for the little guy and everyone loved him. They feared him also but they knew where they stood with him.

I just watched both of these films with my son a few months ago and I really could not get over what a bad man Michael became. I did not notice it as much in my younger years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[xipotec]

The one thing I never understood is how Michael was able to take over the family when he wasn't even a made man? You have to be at least made before you can rise through the ranks, from associate, to soldier, to Capo, to underboss....etc.

This is actually referenced in the film. When Michael first tries to led, Tessio and Clemenza are not listening to him. Tessio even asks Vito if he can break away from the family on his own.

Later, after the assassinations, both call Michael Godfather, in response to his action and to Vitos statement that Michael is in control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[punisher1974]

Has anyone seen the new Version of part 3? I am curious if it is a better book end to the first 2.

 

[SwedishHeat]

Has anyone seen the new Version of part 3? I am curious if it is a better book end to the first 2.

I saw it. It didn't affect the movie one way or the other for me.

I've only seen Part 3 a few times, so I couldn't tell you what changed. I know at the end Michael kinda slumps over in his chair, but in this one it just fades to black, but it fades too quickly, so you don't really get the sense that he's sitting there pondering his life ... which I think was what Coppola was going for.

There are too many characters missing from Part 3 to make it feel like a legitimate continuation of that story for me. I get that Duvall didn't agree to come back, but if you're going to replace his character, it still needs to be an essential character like Hagan was. The family lawyer should've been even more present in Part 3 considering the "gone legit" plot line.

 

[hellgrammite00]

The one thing I never understood is how Michael was able to take over the family when he wasn't even a made man? You have to be at least made before you can rise through the ranks, from associate, to soldier, to Capo, to underboss....etc.

Vito at the end of the day could bend the rules as he saw fit, being in control.

He put his son in charge, but Michael wasn't a limp noodle like Fredo. Not only did he engineer the killing of Sollozzo and McCluskey, but he did it himself AND succeeded perfectly.

If Vito had decided to put say Fredo in charge, the captains would likely have taken him out at some point and installed a new powerful leader or disbanded the family.

Michael could substitute any lack of respect towards him going forward with fear.

It is interesting to reflect on the brain and brutality of Sollozzo with Michael. Sollozzo has a lot of traits similar with Michael (just being a bit older.) The thing is Michael survived his assassination attempt (which killed his young wife), and at that point Michael became more cold, defensive and unrelentingly brutal.

 

[xipotec]

My takes.

Sonny would never have been a good boss, BUT he did suggest doing exactly what Michael EVENTUALLY did anyway!
Sonny wanted all out war from the start. He wanted to take our Barzini before anyone else. Had he followed all the way through, he may have lived , and he may have been Capo for the entire family in total control of all the territories before Michael. I think he was killed not just for revenge of Barzinis kid, but because they knew he would come after all the other families and he would WIN. So they took him out knowing it would weaken the Corleone family. The did not count on Michael becoming the boss he did.

With Michael, I think his decent into brutality began way earlier than most people think. After Vitos attempted assassination, he get beat up by McClusky. At that moment he knows she can never be straight in the world where police Captains will see out his father and him for a dollar. He pushes for killing Solozzo and MCculsky over the rest of the family. Up till that point, his main motivations was to protect his family from their enemies. After Apolonia is blown up, he comes to realize , there is not way to protect his family, and his motive turns to destroying anyone who poses a threat in any way.

Ultimately, this behavior gets more and more extreme until he has created a situation where his enemies are everywhere, and they are really the only relationship he has left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajp4mgs]

I've only seen Part 3 a few times, so I couldn't tell you what changed. I know at the end Michael kinda slumps over in his chair, but in this one it just fades to black, but it fades too quickly, so you don't really get the sense that he's sitting there pondering his life ... which I think was what Coppola was going for.

Yeah, changing the ending seems to have been done so that Michael's figurative "death" becomes more of the focus when his literal death that we saw in the theatrical cut gets edited out. But Coppola's intent to spotlight Michael dying on the inside from having to live with his sins for all those years was conveyed equally well (actually better, imo) in the original cut anyway. It was already obvious.

In this new Coda cut, what it is lost from the original ending (for me, at least) is the poignant symbolism when comparing Michael's final moments of life to those of his father. Isn't drawing a symbolic connection why they were both shown dying outside while wearing similar hats?

In the theatrical version, Michael dies alone with no trace of family around him. That contrasts beautifully with Vito dying while enjoying playing with his grandson in the first film. Vito's choices still allowed his family to carry on in more ways than one, and he wasn't abandoned or isolated from them by the end of his life. In contrast, Michael's choices left him with resentment and isolation. Seeing the two actual deaths play out decades apart within the same trilogy, and noting the thematic metaphor from comparing the two scenes, is enough to make me prefer the theatrical cut.

I also prefer the original opening scene and never had a problem with the narrative flow of the film. The negative issues (Sofia's acting, some crappy dialogue, cheesy interactions, over-the-top delivery, etc.) that bothered me more were things that the Coda cut did nothing to alleviate. It actually made those issues stand out more when I watched it. Might just be me, though.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Sonny would never have been a good boss, BUT he did suggest doing exactly what Michael EVENTUALLY did anyway!
Sonny wanted all out war from the start. He wanted to take our Barzini before anyone else. Had he followed all the way through, he may have lived , and he may have been Capo for the entire family in total control of all the territories before Michael. I think he was killed not just for revenge of Barzinis kid, but because they knew he would come after all the other families and he would WIN. So they took him out knowing it would weaken the Corleone family. The did not count on Michael becoming the boss he did.

Given how easy it was for his enemies to play Sonny's emotions like a fiddle and react so predictably to their setup that he ended up like fish in a barrel, I have a hard time believing he would've lasted long enough to accomplish much of anything.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Vito > Michael > Sonny

Having said that, Vincent will be the ultimate Don. The best of Michael and Sonny.

 

[SwedishHeat]

The negative issues (Sofia's acting, some crappy dialogue, cheesy interactions, over-the-top delivery, etc.) that bothered me more were things that the Coda cut did nothing to alleviate. It actually made those issues stand out more when I watched it. Might just be me, though.

Part 3 just feels dated, probably because it was made in the 90s, set in the 90s, whereas the other films have the benefit of looking back in time.

 

[punisher1974]

I saw it. It didn't affect the movie one way or the other for me.

I've only seen Part 3 a few times, so I couldn't tell you what changed. I know at the end Michael kinda slumps over in his chair, but in this one it just fades to black, but it fades too quickly, so you don't really get the sense that he's sitting there pondering his life ... which I think was what Coppola was going for.

There are too many characters missing from Part 3 to make it feel like a legitimate continuation of that story for me. I get that Duvall didn't agree to come back, but if you're going to replace his character, it still needs to be an essential character like Hagan was. The family lawyer should've been even more present in Part 3 considering the "gone legit" plot line.

Thanks for the info. I have only seen part 3 once. I love the first 2 but 3 just felt too different in tone to work for me. Really missed Duvall also.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

The one thing I never understood is how Michael was able to take over the family when he wasn't even a made man? You have to be at least made before you can rise through the ranks, from associate, to soldier, to Capo, to underboss....etc.

In the Puzo novel, you could only "make your bones" by killing someone.

The book covers this first when Clemenza has to get rid of his driver, Paulie Gatto ( who ratted out the Don to be hit ) Clemenza picks Rocco Lampone ( guy with the limp who ended up with a larger role in Part 2) to be promoted. But in order to be promoted, Lampone had to kill someone. Which was Gatto.

Michael was "made" the minute he killed Sollozzo and McCluskey.

There is sort of an extended discussion of it in the novel, The Sicilian ( Ended up a mediocre Chris Lambert film) Both Michael and Clemenza have minor parts in the book. Apparently the publisher demanded it for the book to be published at all ( It's really a bad book)

The original novel is very good. There are apparently two versions. A cut down version and IIRC, just the original version that has elements that go beyond PG13. The book covers more into Johnny Fontaine, Al Neri, Rocco Lampone, McCluskey, Tom Hagen and Michael's mother. There are some sections that also cover why Sonny became the way he ended up.

At one point, there were apparently negotiations to make another Godfather film, by using unfilmed sections of the book ( Middle aged Vito, young 20-ish Sonny) Leo DiCaprio was approached to play young Sonny.

 

[metlmastr]

I know that this forum was started by somebody else, but as a long-time fan of the original film who just re-watched it, I'd like to get an answer from other fans regarding a loose end in Part 1: How is that, towards the end of the movie, Michael and Kay all of a sudden have a three-year old son? Time seems to pass by in the film with no coherence and no regard to the viewer. I just watched part of "The Complete Epic" again on VHS to see if I could find some explanation, but I couldn't. I'm okay with the rest of the movie, but the sudden appearance of the kid just seems to make no sense to me. Also, he's three at the time of Connie and Carlo's son's baptism, so obviously, Kay must've had him while Michael was away in Italy (because Connie's still pregnant at that time), but absolutely no mention is made of this in the movie. Kay finally sees Michael again after more than two years and he talks to her about getting married and starting a family, but I can't figure out why this is when the son had probably already been born. I just wish someone would explain it to me. It's probably all detailed in the book, but in the movie it comes across as a loose end. By the way, Michael and Kay's son is named Anthony, but I'd sure like to know why no mention was made as to when he was born (and, most likely, there would've been a big baptism ceremony as well). Thanks in advance for your response.