TS: Godfather vs Godfather II

yeah, it was the 'keep your friends close, enemies closer', aka, delay the fuck out of your vendettas so people get complacent and don't see them coming.

part of how Michael let the five families, Moe Green, even his own family members think the Corleone family had weakened so that the assassinations take everybody by surprise and he's back at the top of the heap, moving to Nevada with a big 'fuck you' on the way out.

xxpost did they, though? I mean he pretty much knew it was Hymen Roth from the beginning, used Pentageli as bait, and I'm sure he had to have some suspicions that the most obvious mark in the family is his doofus brother.

he just has incredible patience and plays the long game in testing his suspicions.

also how dumb is Fredo that he can't remember what he said ten minutes ago.

I think the scene where Michael declares Carlo his new right-hand man in Nevada provides something like the planking for the assassination scene, but it's only really apparent in hindsight. You don't notice it in the moment since there's so much happening in the scene, but in hindsight, it's obvious that it made absolutely no sense for Michael to promote Carlo to that level (he has no reason to put that kind of trust in Carlo) unless it was to keep Carlo close.

which is another thing that baffles Hagen, not only is he fired, but you make THIS prick your partner?

but of course he doesn't read between the lines, cos he ain't no wartime consigliere

Michael knew about Roth, for sure--figured him out early--but I really believe he had no inclination Fredo was involved. His reaction when Fredo lets Johnny Ola's name slip strikes me as genuine shock and dismay.

https://phildellio.tripod.com/ola.jpg

I think the scene where Michael declares Carlo his new right-hand man in Nevada provides something like the planking for the assassination scene

! yes this is it, tho clem's point still applies imo. thanks to all

there are things being negotiated now that are gonna solve all your problems and answer all your questions

Tessio is also maybe dispatched with a certain amount of honor because Michael really does know it was strictly business, whereas with Carlo he knew it was personal (also Carlo being actually a member of the family of course.)

We don’t see Tessio’s death but we can imagine something quick vs the torturous ugly and not even hidden nature of Carlo’s demise (I hope they didn’t pass any honest cops on the way to the quarry or whatever, with C-man’s legs sticking out the windshield!)

if you read the book, you were treated to descriptions of each victim's sphincters releasing by Puzo

def but it's also implied that michael (ironically given icy performance and intended grooming for abstracted stringholding legitimacy) kills personally where his father would not right? connie says "you waited until no one could stop you" (revived thread because of this line prob)-- much is made mid-movie of the don's refusal to continue vendetta over the v same crime, sonny's death-- then we are shown these two formally identical "go out to the car" executions w these v diff vibes+meanings-- and it's the business one that follows posthumously from the don's final preoccupation+command and the personal one that is part of some kind of step into new territory for michael?-- (also of course the one that leads him to discover he can lie to kay's face)

it's just mostly the kind of movie where we would be able to see him knowing at some earlier point. 2 feels less of an obligation about this kind of thing.

I feel like Part 1 gets trickier in this respect as it goes along. Initially, we're allowed to follow Michael's thinking very closely, and we see the sequence of events clearly as one thing leads to another. When Michael takes over as Don, he becomes much more of a closed-book, we're given much narrower glimpses into his thinking, at times he's bluffing the audience as much as his associates and his enemies. The scenes feel more fragmentary, and it's only afterwards that they all fall into place.

yes! all i rly meant by modernist vs postmodernist godfathering was that the last third of this felt way more like 2 than i'd remembered.

(in that spirit then i should say leads "us" to discover he can lie to kay's face)

DLH, I forget the more minute and precise differences in the scenes but generally I feel maybe like Hagen handling Tessio’s goodbye vs Michael dealing w/Carlo more personally ties in with that

yes-- tessio even tries a final futile explicitly personal appeal to tom, but (the conditions do not allow, and) tom is a robot

that was a bit of a ruse, I took Connie's lines to be more reflective of her naivety. The Don's speech wasn't him actually foregoing vengeance, it was a clever sleight of hand. He promised that *he* would not be the one to break the peace made that day (but he made NO promises for his son, when he took over as Don).

Vito had clearly seen Barzini was muscling in on Corleone territory and after acquiring protection of judges, that wasn't likely to stop. The Corleone family was practically getting 'chased out of New York', as Moe Greene said, and the only way the equilibrium-resetting assassination of the 5 heads would work is if the Corleones feigned weakness. Vito going into retirement, transitioning to a peaceful, old wine-drinking man, the Corleones trying to expand into Nevada, which to the untrained eye, looked like them trying to flee New York rather than an intentional business strategy.

Vito was a violent man, no different than any other Don, but he knew if he got his vendetta against Sonny right then and there, the war would continue, and they weren't in a good place to win - next up to be whacked might be Michael, or Tom, or Vito himself. But I have no doubt he wanted revenge.

You even see Vito coaching Michael for what's to come, you just think at the time he's helping him avoid being betrayed by Tessio, but Vito also says there are reasons why Hagen can't be involved with what's to come, which almost certainly means "war and blood is coming". and the reasons Hagen can't be involved, besides "not being a wartime consiglieri", is that as soon as the five heads of the families, Moe Greene, and Carlo are dead, he'll most certainly be reinstalled in his position on arrival to Vegas, and it removes the risk of Hagen being incarcerated along with the other members of the family for these crimes as he has no foreknowledge. it's also possible they thought Hagen would try to shut it down, as it was a crazy idea.

Godfather II was truly the film where Michael broke w/ his father and became ruthless in a way that was positively unhinged, a need to win despite the costs. In a way he was more like Sonny in terms of his rage, but not his recklessness.

xxxxpost

what if it was 1977 and Michael was engaged to Annie Halll

Vito also says there are reasons why Hagen can't be involved with what's to come, which almost certainly means "war and blood is coming". and the reasons Hagen can't be involved, besides "not being a wartime consiglieri", is that as soon as the five heads of the families, Moe Greene, and Carlo are dead, he'll most certainly be reinstalled in his position on arrival to Vegas, and it removes the risk of Hagen being incarcerated along with the other members of the family for these crimes as he has no foreknowledge.

I hadn't thought of this. Is this from the novel?

I don't remember, to be honest - I read it in high school. but the book does have a lot more insight into the thinking of the individual family members that kind of fills in gaps.

I always felt that they were protecting him in a way just from the way that scene unfolds.

some people have asked me why Michael makes such a quick transition to wanting to join the family's dealings after his long-standing distance and disapproval, and I'm always like "for us Italians, the moment sometime tries to kill your papa, it don't matter what disagreements you had with him prior. people are gonna die."

Your explanation of Michael freezing Tom out makes sense, but I also always thought it just had a lot to do with Michael's vindictiveness; he obviously bears some kind of personal grudge towards Tom at various points in II (e.g., when he confronts Tom about his mistress). He could be channeling Sonny's belittlement of Tom in I ("That's easy for you to say, Tom, he's not your father").

i agree that it is hard to imagine even the sainted-via-omission don of these movies being above taking revenge for the murder of his son but i'm just talking about carlo here-- connie says "you all" blamed him for sonny's death and whether she is naive or not i don't think the idea is that michael alone has the insight to figure out he was involved, and presumably the corleones can do what they want with carlo regardless of their position in mob geopolitics. the celebrated baptism montage murders are indeed exactly the kind of thing the don might have done-- then the baptism ends and michael exits the church with one more murder of his very own left to do, set aside special, a denouement.

quite possibly, but I'm not sure if that enmity had sunk in yet? he has that tender moment with Hagen after his assassination attempt at the beginning of II, but by the end, he's cold as ice to him. part of that, I think, is him either assuming Hagen helped Kay get the abortion, or at the very least, didn't try hard enough to stop her (or figure out that she was trying to get one).

(xp also of course he says the very same thing to carlo that sonny said to connie-- "you think i'd make my sister a widow?"-- then unlike violent hothead sonny immediately makes his sister a widow.)

some people have asked me why Michael makes such a quick transition to wanting to join the family's dealings after his long-standing distance and disapproval

There's also that beautiful moment after the hospital face-off, where he lights a cigarette for Enzo and realizes that he's stayed steady and calm through the whole thing, where I think he discovers that he has a taste for this stuff

forgot xpost for previous post

dlh, I see your point. I don't know that Vito himself would have killed Carlo since he loved his daughter and he'd know what that would do to her, but at the same token, I'm not sure what action he would think was appropriate. Divorce, well, they're Catholic, so that wasn't something he'd approve of (Michael himself gives her shit for getting divorced in II). Stripping him of his participation in the family, definitely.

it's hard to think of Vito allowing Carlo to sit at family dinners knowing he helped kill his son, though. and I doubt Connie would ever believe he was guilty. I'm going to guess he probably died before he could figure it out and Michael decided to deal with it knowing he'd be hated by Connie forever for it.

Pacino's concentration is so complete and so masterful that I have trouble thinking this is the same actor in Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Dick Tracy, Heat, etc. I have trouble even thinking it's the same actor who played Michael a third time.

There's also that beautiful moment after the hospital face-off, where he lights a cigarette for Enzo and realizes that he's stayed steady and calm through the whole thing, where I think he discovers that he has a taste for this stuff

― jmm, Sunday, November 6, 2022 11:59 AM bookmarkflaglink

interesting you mention that! my dad and I were watching it for about the 10th time together back in 2010, and he drew the same conclusion, saying he'd never really noticed it before but that's where he makes the emotional move towards joining the family.

xpost I don't mind yelly Pacino by any means but it's kind of amazing that his voice never really creeps above a whisper until he yells "NO!" at Kay.

my dad used to always say "this is the moment the Michael Kay knew is completely gone".

it's hard to think of Vito allowing Carlo to sit at family dinners knowing he helped kill his son, though.

oh totally i mean it doesn't make much sense as something this character would "actually" do. just parsing the ~resonance~ of what-we-are-shown here.

btw, you've never seen rage in a movie theatre like the time they brought it back via TCM Cinema Classics, but they mistakenly played the wrong introduction prior to showing the movie, instead showing the intro for Bonnie and Clyde.

dude in front of me kept yelling "WHAT? no, this is Godfather! fix it!", people booing, guy in front of me saying "I believe in America" over and over again until the film started and to everyone's relief, it was the right movie.

otm re cigarette and pacino perf in general which despite its exquisite control is still full of very nuanced lil moments like that on its long way down to what kael called the "almost immobile" gargoyle of late-2.

xxpost yeah, and it is definitely a character transition for Michael. I hadn't read the book when I saw the movie the first time and I really thought Michael was going to spare him, until I saw the backseat of the car had two people in it (hello, garotte!)

guy in front of me saying "I believe in America" over and over again until the film started

looool

(xposts) With so many mob-related films and TV shows, there's always the idea--sometimes unspoken, sometimes verbalized--that the current generation doesn't adhere to the same moral code as earlier generations. Even though Vito was a ruthless killer when he needed to be, there's this central idea that Michael isn't the man his father was. When Hagen and Pentangeli meet for the final time, they wax nostalgically about the way things used to operate (all the way back to ancient Rome, I think). That never-measuring-up idea is all over The Sopranos. So I think we're often meant to view Michael's actions through a "Vito wouldn't have done that" prism. (Maybe this is obvious.)

only other quibble w neanderthal's exegesis is that of the two women in these movies (lol) connie is def not the naive one, but the other one. the one who says "read the papers. read the papers. that's your husband! that's your husband!" get her to a doctor.

(apologies to mama corleone.)

the two things that affect to extract mikey a little from the old-school family -- the first approved by vito, the second not -- are being "joe college" and joining up: it's been almost 50 yrs since i read the book so i don't know if this is even filled in there, but do we know if michael saw actual-real action overseas and if so where? bcz basically the first is vito's vison of achieving respectability (which i don't think is fully bogus even if i do think it's self-delusion) and the second is no, michael's not going to be the joe-college head of a respectable family, he's going to be an even more war-time don

i mean they say he's a war hero or something don't they?

Oh I only think Connie is naive that her dad wouldn't have blessed it (I think jury's out), Kay is sure as fuck naive about everything Michael does lol.

Didn't the Don say in the hospital bed that he had "big plans" for Michael? "Senator Corleone!" It seems like he was always going to play a part in family business but on the respectable side.

I think book said Michael had a Purple Heart?

There's also the scene where Sonny makes fun of him for wanting to kill Sollozzo and he's like "I was in the army yo I ain't afraid of no blood".

Being a politician and representing Italians would make Vito proud.

Going off to fight a war for a government that made life hard for Italian immigrants, on the other hand...

That's why Sonny was comfortable with letting him handle a gun. xpost

But yeah Vito never wanted Michael to be the Don. He wanted Sonny, but realized he was terrible at it, and Fredo was an idiot.

Guessing Sonny probably still would have been given the position if he hadn't died and Michael hadn't stepped up.

underrated lol: "i knew santino would have to go through all this. and fredo-- well. fredo was-- well."

[makes same philosophical face he makes during screaming crossfade from facade of hollywood mansion]