- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michael is actually the villain in Godfather II
Posted on 1/23/19 at 4:10 pm to TheTideMustRoll
Posted on 1/23/19 at 4:10 pm to TheTideMustRoll
I don't think anyone ever thought of Michael as anything but an anti-hero He's cold, somewhat unfeeling and has no empathy for anyone or anything, at least in his younger years.....it's not until III that you really see some sort of genuine emotion or remorse from him about the things that he has done....had to do .
Michael overall will manipulate always to his advantage. He's not interested in you winning so much as he's interested in him winning which is a big departure from Vito, who sees that helping the people in his organization, and outside of it win, then he wins.....he also understands the cost of victory such as when he turns down the drug trade. He knows that his friends in high places will not be his friends if he gets involved in it. Yes, he could make a lot of money, but he instinctively knows the cost. The cost of the trade and the cost of the war between the mafia families.
When Michael becomes Don, he does not care, he figures that he will eliminate his competition and liabilities. He whacks Barzini, Mo Green, Tessio and others all in one day. In II he sets up Frankie Pentangeli and the Rosanno Brothers despite the fact that Frankie five Angels is loyal to him. He strings along Hyman Roth, knowing all the while that he will have to eliminate him. He kills his brother after ostensibly making peace with him
It's not until 20 years later that his conscience starts to effect him when he has a chance to go completely legitimate with the Immobilari deal. Of course, in the end his price for legitimacy is his family, wife gone and remarried, Son becomes an opera singer and his daughter dead and he gives up being Don to who is really the rightful heir to all of this.....Vincent
Michael overall will manipulate always to his advantage. He's not interested in you winning so much as he's interested in him winning which is a big departure from Vito, who sees that helping the people in his organization, and outside of it win, then he wins.....he also understands the cost of victory such as when he turns down the drug trade. He knows that his friends in high places will not be his friends if he gets involved in it. Yes, he could make a lot of money, but he instinctively knows the cost. The cost of the trade and the cost of the war between the mafia families.
When Michael becomes Don, he does not care, he figures that he will eliminate his competition and liabilities. He whacks Barzini, Mo Green, Tessio and others all in one day. In II he sets up Frankie Pentangeli and the Rosanno Brothers despite the fact that Frankie five Angels is loyal to him. He strings along Hyman Roth, knowing all the while that he will have to eliminate him. He kills his brother after ostensibly making peace with him
It's not until 20 years later that his conscience starts to effect him when he has a chance to go completely legitimate with the Immobilari deal. Of course, in the end his price for legitimacy is his family, wife gone and remarried, Son becomes an opera singer and his daughter dead and he gives up being Don to who is really the rightful heir to all of this.....Vincent
1
Posted on 1/23/19 at 4:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I said that he was manipulated and it wouldn’t happen again because he was completely cut out of the business and could be kept as essentially a prisoner at the compound with no contact to anyone that was remotely involved in the business not to mention the people he was manipulated by are all dead
To me, Neri's reaction to Michael's death stare when they embrace says it all. He can't even look Michael in the eye. Neri, the stone cold hitman for the Corleone Family, knows killing Fredo is wrong.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 4:38 pm to memphis tiger
Michael was a pragmatist and had clear vision and will. He knew times were Changing. He had no use for pretending to play nice with his dad's buddies who tried to kill him. Once he made the decision to kill the cop in the restaurant it was over. He had a clear vision that you have to eliminate your enemies completely to survive. He became consumed with it and it bled over into his family life.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 4:41 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
In II he sets up Frankie Pentangeli and the Rosanno Brothers despite the fact that Frankie five Angels is loyal to him.
This is not correct. Michael asked Frank Pantangelli to make peace with the Rizzotto Brothers so that Hyman Roth thinks that everything is good between them. It was Hyman Roth that had the Rizzotto brothers try to kill Frank Pantangelli so that he would think that it was Michael that betrayed him.
It was Roth. He played this one beautifully.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 5:46 pm to blueboy
quote:
Yeah, pretty much everyone in both movies is the villain.
The real villain was Connie.
If she would have been a good wife to Carlo instead of a spoiled little guinea brat, Santino might have lived and kept Barzini in line.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 6:12 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Sonny was the heir. Vito had groomed him for it. So while Sonny was a philandering meathead. He still had the values and the advisors.
And Sonny actually had love for Tom Hagen and thought of him legitemetly as a brother and a member of the family, which Michael obviously did not.
He kept him on because he knew he was a good lawyer and was smart, but it was clear the relationship was a one way street.
Leaving Tom in charge of the family when michael thought he was going to go "legit" with Cuba was not because of any emotional attachment, regardless of what he said to Tom, but it was because it was the smart thing to do and Tom was better trained in the life of a Don than anyone else michale had on the payroll.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 6:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they're all villains. you just bought into the window dressing. a couple scenes after that wedding Vito sends muscle to a Hollywood producer to force him to pick Vito's relative in a movie role (after that relative cucked him)
Ding ding ding.
While I respect the films, I've always thought either audiences were too oblivious, FFC was too smart for audiences, or FFC wasn't actually good with the material, and that lead to a blunted impact of what was really going on.
The romanticization of it all is wrong. Wrong. None of those people are good, yet that's the way it's been played for years. Michael is evil. Straight up.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 6:47 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
While I respect the films, I've always thought either audiences were too oblivious, FFC was too smart for audiences, or FFC wasn't actually good with the material, and that lead to a blunted impact of what was really going on.
on top of that, i think they got the mob stuff very wrong
scorcese's movies were much closer to what mobsters were and Goodfellas makes you hate them all (as you should)
Posted on 1/23/19 at 6:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
The thing is though, Goodfellas is far more glorified than Godfather, to me, from a societal standpoint.
And I think it's because so many can relate more to the "small time" hoods than the more elegant, shakespearen portrayals of Vito and Co. That Coppola did.
We all know people who idolize the characters in Goodfellas and particularly loved the Pesci character (whom I always despised) just because Scorsese, whether he meant to or not, portrayed the Goodfellas in such a cool manner.
It's obvious these people are all true blue, bully, evil, scumbags, and Scorsese even says that in interviews, but it still doesn't stop most of the audience from being captivated by their lifestyle. It's the same with Wolf of Wall Street.
Belfort was bad guy, a con artist, but he is glorified in the film until basically the last 10 minutes or so.
And I think it's because so many can relate more to the "small time" hoods than the more elegant, shakespearen portrayals of Vito and Co. That Coppola did.
We all know people who idolize the characters in Goodfellas and particularly loved the Pesci character (whom I always despised) just because Scorsese, whether he meant to or not, portrayed the Goodfellas in such a cool manner.
It's obvious these people are all true blue, bully, evil, scumbags, and Scorsese even says that in interviews, but it still doesn't stop most of the audience from being captivated by their lifestyle. It's the same with Wolf of Wall Street.
Belfort was bad guy, a con artist, but he is glorified in the film until basically the last 10 minutes or so.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 7:04 pm to genro
quote:
Vito is a mafioso in an old World Sicilian sense where the "legitimate" powers that be are more corrupt than the mafia. He's a pillar of the community, a philanthropist, respected and loved and a true arbiter of justice in a corrupt society. He sees himself this way, a protector and a necessary force for good for his people.
Michael ran into the same problem in Nevada. He wanted to move into a legal business (casinos) but the "legitimate" world was dirtier than the Mafia. It was full of people like Senator Geary.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 7:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
on top of that, i think they got the mob stuff very wrong
scorcese's movies were much closer to what mobsters were and Goodfellas makes you hate them all (as you should)
Yup. Precisely why Goodfellas > Godfather for me specifically. Maybe not as a piece of art, but as a movie it is.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 7:15 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
The thing is though, Goodfellas is far more glorified than Godfather, to me, from a societal standpoint.
And I think it's because so many can relate more to the "small time" hoods than the more elegant, shakespearen portrayals of Vito and Co. That Coppola did.
I mean, people are probably saying that to me about my comment about GF, but no way. Scorcese plays it as a farce (the "glamor" of it all), almost from the get go. That's due in part to the narration, there's already cynicism built in, and the viewer can tell that.
I think Goodfellas is far more clear in intentions to "These are all terrible people," than GF is.
quote:
We all know people who idolize the characters in Goodfellas and particularly loved the Pesci character (whom I always despised) just because Scorsese, whether he meant to or not, portrayed the Goodfellas in such a cool manner.
Actually, people quote Pesci because he's quotable, I've never met a single person who idolize's anyone from Goodfellas. Now, the collective idea of "the mob," comes from GF's impact on that cultural representation, more than Goodfellas.
On the flip side Vito, even as "good" as he is, IS idolized as the "honorable" mobster. Which is still a problem.
quote:
It's obvious these people are all true blue, bully, evil, scumbags, and Scorsese even says that in interviews, but it still doesn't stop most of the audience from being captivated by their lifestyle. It's the same with Wolf of Wall Street.
Belfort was bad guy, a con artist, but he is glorified in the film until basically the last 10 minutes or so.
Must be in different circles
Or we have different opinions of "captivation." 
Posted on 1/23/19 at 8:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
scorcese's movies were much closer to what mobsters were and Goodfellas makes you hate them all (as you should)
Goodfellas puts a lot shine on that life style. The real Henry Hill is scum.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 8:29 pm to Jack Ruby
Lots of good posts in here, would be remiss not to
quote:
small potatoes
Posted on 1/23/19 at 10:12 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
knows killing Fredo is wrong
No it wasn’t. Fredo’s stupidity and weakness combined with insecure ambition had already led to gunmen spraying bullets into Michael’s home. He most certainly would have fricked up again in the future and the lives of Michael and his family weren’t worth the risk.
Posted on 1/23/19 at 10:19 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
While I respect the films, I've always thought either audiences were too oblivious, FFC was too smart for audiences, or FFC wasn't actually good with the material, and that lead to a blunted impact of what was really going on.
After watching interviews w/ Coppola, I believe it's a combination.
He inserted some of his own agendas into the film that were not as pronounced in the book.
1. He personally hates the Catholic church and fetishized the hypocrisy of these violent men praying along in church and attending sacraments. For the audience, this gets blurred and presents an image of European aristocracy.
2. He is overly nostalgic for his own family's beloved Italian traditions, even bringing in his own father for the music. That gives us things like the long camera views of people dancing at the wedding, Clemenza's food comments and cooking advice, etc.
Those are important to the film, but the time constraints or whatever leave out a lot of the basic hood stuff that is in the book. When reading the book, there were scenes that had me picturing basic street-level thugs raping a girl and then getting the shite beat out of them by other basic street-level thugs, but you don't see any of that petty violence in the film, just big dramatic chess moves.
ETA: We're all glad some book elements got left out of the film, like Lucy's big sloppy snatch.
This post was edited on 1/23/19 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 1/24/19 at 8:52 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:
Sonny brings Carlo home and introduces him to Connie.
Which put the gears in motion for his own downfall and allowed Michael to assume the Don's chair. Who knows what would have happened had Sonny never introduced Carlo to the family.
Posted on 1/24/19 at 9:10 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
particularly loved the Pesci character (whom I always despised)
Hated him in Goodfellas & Casino. Deserved everything he got in both.
Posted on 1/24/19 at 2:51 pm to jflsufan
I always saw Frank Pentangeli as a pawn that Michael was willing to sacrifice
Posted on 1/24/19 at 3:45 pm to KiwiHead
the real villian is the tollbooth guy that took the day off in part 1
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News