Godfather question: Did anybody back home know that Michael got married while he was in Italy?*

I've read most, if not all of the Godfather sequels. None come remotely close to Puzo's book! Instantly forgettable. Even Puzo couldn't catch that lightning in a bottle again, as seen with the only 'official' sequel, the Sicilian, a bad book made into a worse movie!

 

This is at the beginning, right? I thought about this as applied to the Michael and Apollónia question of whether he just wanted to bang her and then dump her. Wouldn't her father have the right to make the same request to the local don if Michael would have used her like that? It would be his perception of the violation against his family honor vs Michael.

 

I'm a little late on this, but I always thought it was the way Barzini presented himself as the mediator in front of the assembled families, elevating his stature as one they might look to to lead them in the future. The whole gathering seemed to strengthen his perception, and so I think Vito recognized this and that Barzini had orchestrated the chaos and reconciliation.

 

I do not believe at all that Michael planned to dump Apollonia:

1. He went through the old ways to court her and marry her (no secret Sonny like affairs)
2. The comment made by the man that she would make a good American wife
3. As I alluded to earlier, that she was a woman like his mother, which men tend to choose for a wife

 

Absolutely brilliant, from memory the novel goes into Bonasera's head and he indeed does imagine any number of different tasks which might be asked of him. Never could he imagine it would be to work on the Don's son and heir.

 

Yes, Vito knew all along there was more than just the Tataglia family involved and at the meeting he saw it was Barzini who was doing it as a power play to get more control. Until the meeting he probably wasn't sure who it was, maybe he suspected Barzini, but after the meeting he was 100% sure.

 

I'm in agreement. Back when the discussion was going about their relationship, I had thought about the opening wedding scene and how the same scenario would have worked out against Michael. A bit of foreshadowing towards Michael's own attitude, in that scene, and your post reminded me of it.

 

Also he knew that somebody within the family might crack and go over to the opposition - thinking Michael is too weak and the family is losing control. He didn't know who again, he just understood human nature and how the business worked. What he did know was how it would happen so forewarning Michael how the traitor within would reveal themselves.

 

The opening scene shows the difference between Vito and Michael. Vito displays a much greater amount of respect to the "mobster-commoner" dynamic. He recognizes that if he shows an element of kindness towards the common folk, the gesture will eventually be repaid (in one form or another), and it will ultimately allow him to be more successful and profitable in his criminal ventures. Not only does Vito not make the undertaker pay, but when the time comes for the undertaker to repay the favor, Vito is very humble and deferential.

And keep in mind -- the undertaker had previously distanced himself from Vito, despite the fact that their wives were friends. Do you really think that Michael would have agreed to do the guy a favor after getting snubbed like that? No way.

Remember when Michael was talking to Kay about how his father helped Johnny Fontaine get out of that singing contract? He could barely hide his disgust at the idea of holding a gun to the head of Fontaine's manager. But his father was actually quite fair and reasonable with the manager (initially offering him $10,000, which he refused). I think Michael viewed that kind of behavior as a sign of weakness. Michael had a sociopathic need to NEVER compromise and NEVER back down. Vito instinctively realized that compromise and humility were occasionally necessary for long-term success.

 

I think Michael wanted to marry Kay for the same reason that the star football player wants to marry the head cheerleader. It's a symbol of achievement, of success, of fulfilling the stereotypical expectation of "The American Dream".

But he didn't really love Kay. Not in the way that he loved Apollonia.

 

Uh, banging her and dumping her is not the same as rape. Not to me, anyway.

 

True. Sollozzo of course had referred to the fact that they got close enough to nearly kill Vito as an example of weakening of the family's power. And also the hit on Luca Brazzi. In other words there was a perception that the family had been weakening for some time. Then Sonny.

 

The deeper question, then, is: Did Sollozzo know about the hit on Sonny? We know from Carlo that Barzini arranged the whole scenario of the hit. But was Sollozzo in on it or did Barzini act alone?

 

Sollozzo was dead by then.

 

Divorce wasn't even allowed in Italy until 1970. If Michael had married Apollonia and then abandoned her to go back to America, her Sicilian father and Don Tommasino might very well have seen it as an offense worthy of death.

Michael's protected status would have saved him from such a fate, but he certainly would have been required to compensate Signor Vitelli for the damage to his daughter's reputation.

 

yes, remembered that after I wrote it,

 

The movie was only 3 hours long. They didn't have time for another sentence.

 

I still like how they had time to cut the head off a horse, drag it upstairs, mop up all of the blood leading through the house and up the stairs and then put it in the bed without waking anyone up.

 

Dude... that is dark.

Although I've never thought about the horse head logistics. Why not drop it into a plastic drum or barrel. It's clean. Easy to carry. And self contained.

And... it just got darker.

 

Great thread! I know these movies (I and II) like the back of my hand and never get tired of watching them and reading chatter about them.

Agreed. Pacino not winning an Oscar for II is one of the biggest Oscar crimes ever.

 

Michael Gazzo absolutely deserved an Oscar too. Only problem is he was up against DeNiro from the same movie, and he deserved it too.

 

Who said they went up the stairs (roof, window?)? Who would drag a horse head around without being in a container of some kind? Who says it was put in the bed while the man was sleeping? Who says if it was put in the bed that the old man was sleeping in, he wasn't drugged first? The house was huge and it was obviously a studio mogul that is bathed in money, but not necessarily common sense. It was obvious he lived alone, and I don't find it too much of a stretch that he treated other people like crap and probably underpaid them as well.

Matter of fact, another thought, is anyone sure what the timeline of the horse head actually is? Could it be over several days? I would think paying off the help and talking to them just a little bit you would understand his habits and the best time to do such a thing.

Here is from the novel:

Nope Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico I rank higher. Godfather part II is awesome, but I never see him really change like he does in the first movie.

 

While not a direct "Godfather" sequel, Puzo's "The Last Don" was very good, I thought. And the TV miniseries wasn't bad, either.

 

When my wife saw The Godfather for the first time I thought she was going to start crying when Appolonia got blown up. She sussed what was going to happen to Sonny the minute he pulled up to the tollbooth, though.

The non-Puzo Godfather books might come in handy if you run out of toilet paper, but other than that...

IMO the only other Mario Puzo novels that measure up to The Godfather are Fools Die and possibly Omerta. I wish they'd've made a movie out of Fools Die at some point, that would have been good.

At least one of them got it- De Niro totally deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the young Vito. Clearly Bobby studied every nuance of how Marlon Brando played the character- he totally nailed the part.

 

Given the choice between De Niro (who copied quite a bit of Brando's mannerisms) and Gazzo (who went out of his way to avoid comparisons to Clemenza), I'd give the nod to Gazzo. He nailed that role.