Quick question about the Godfather movies – I have watched 1 & 2 hundreds of times, and each time I watch it, I usually pick up something in the story I hadn’t seen before. But here is one thing I do not get:
Why, did Michael Corleone remove Tom Higgins (sp?) (Robert Duvall’s character) from the counselare position in the Carleone family? Micheal does this early on when taking over the family business in Part I – which leads to the Godfather telling Tom "I am sorry, I always thought you were a good counselare. . . " Why did Michael do this?
In Part II, Tom seems to have even less of a role – but when Michael survives the failed assasination, Michael tells Tom “I know you were hurt I left you out of things, but you are now the only person I can trust”
Why did Michael squeeze out Tom? Does this explain this situation better in the book?
Secondary question – Does reading the book add new demensions to the storyline?
I always got the impression that Michael was attempting to make his own mark, and that Tom was a vestige of his father’s era. Additionally, wasn’t Tom, like Don Coreleone, opposed to selling drugs, which Michael saw no harm in undertaking?
No, Tom agreed with Sonny on the drugs. “This is the future,” I think were his exact words.
Michael did not want Tom as his consigliere first because he had his father to act in that role. Later, it became an issue of needing a wartime consigliere (hey, sorry if I just false-hit you on an ego surf, WC :)). Also, I for one think that there was always a fear in the back of Michael’s mind that Tom might have been a liability. After all, he was (from Michael’s point of view) entirely too willing to concede to negotiations after Vito was hit.
Plus, if Tom weren’t the consigliere, then he wouldn’t be “in the line of fire,” so to speak. And since he wasn’t “in” anymore and everyone (including other Families) knew it, nobody would try and get Tom to betray Michael - there would be no point since Tom was no longer in the inner circle. So when Michael really needed someone to trust completely in Part 2, he knew Tom was okay.
I think Michael really wanted the family to be legitimate. He planned on the family moving to Vegas, setting up there, and after all the dust from the war was settled, Tom would be there for him, out of harm’s way. He told Tom “You’ll be the legal man, what’s more important than that”. He respected Tom and his abilities and knew he’d need him for the long term.
I also think part of the strategy was to lure Carlo in. He said Carlo would be his right hand man in Vegas. Moving Tom out may have made that more legitimate in setting up Carlo.
It helps to see one of the deleted scenes. In the normal version when Tom says “Mikey, why am I out”, he was actually finishing up a thought. He comments that Neri and Rocco report directly to Michael instead of thorugh Tessio and Clemenza and that theya re pulling in more money than their jobs are worth. The Don tells Michael that “I told you that wouldn’t get by him” or something to that effect.
Tom and MIchael’s relationship has always been my favorite in the trilogy. Remember in the flashback scene at the end of II when Michael tells them he’s in the marines. It’s Tom that he’s looking at, not Sonny.
And that’s, I think, the main reason why Part III didn’t work.
I always kind of thought Tom’s firing was part of Michael’s ‘see who stays loyal now that he’s boss’ plan. To see if Tom would betray him like Tessio. And because Tom was practically the No. 2 guy he had to test him hard (i.e. tell him he was kicked out when he really wasn’t).
Just my impression, and I have never read the book or seen the movies more than a handful of times, but Michael viewed the whole “Crime Family” legacy if his father as archaic and wanted very much to be a legitimate businessman.
I believe his affection and respect for Tom never really wavered and him pushing Tom away from the criminal aspects and more towards the “legitimate” portions of the family business were proof of the fact. He tried to give Tom the one thing he himself couldn’t give himself.
My own GODFATHER question: if Hyman Roth ordered Pentangeli’s murder, why does the assassin say “Michael Corleone says hello?”
In an interview with Puzo he mentioned Pentangeli’s brother in II. In a never filmed scene it explains that Pentangeli has an illegitimate family in Sicily who live under his brother’s protection. If Pentangeli testified, his brother would have killed them.
My understanding is that the role of Pentangeli was a last minute revision. Originally, the character was Clemenza (which would have made II that much better), but the actor wanted an unreasonable amount of money to reprise the part.
My main problems with III were (of course) Sofia Coppola (“Da?”) and Eli Wallach’s character (a role Frank Sinatra wanted to play even though he went ballistic over the Johnny Fontanne character in the first movie). Just how many ancient dons can betray Michael in 30 years before he just whacks them all? I also thought the opera sideplot was silly- there were other ways to get him back to Sicily. A nice if anal touch was that for the family photo shot Coppola tracked down all of the originals who posed for the family photo in I; the twins and most of the children weren’t even actors anymore.
I can’t add much to the movie discussion past what’s already here, but as for the secondary question about the book, there’s lots of good background info on characters.
Luca Brasi’s history is real scary and there is almost a separate storyline on Johnny Fontane’s success story in Hollywood, with sex-orgy parties with movie stars and if I recall a chapter about the bridesmaid from Connie’s wedding - the girl Sonny was banging against the bedroom door in the movie. She has a certain anatomical emptiness, so to speak, and only Sonny is man enough for her until she . . . well, just read the book.
I can’t remember much else from the book right now, but it is a fun read and different enough from the movies to be worthwhile.
Dammit. Finally a thread that I have some expertise on, and its already played out.
FWIW, I agree with missbunny’s interpretation. It wasn’t so much a test of Tom’s loyalty as it was a necessity to remove him from the inner circle until the traitors made their move. In both I and II, Tom was the only one Michael could trust, because Tom’s loyalty wasn’t based on “business”.
Now I’ve been reminded of an obscure Godfather item I’ve always wondered about: the movie producer, Woltz, didn’t want Johnny to succeed because he ruined a starlet, right. I think the movie shows a brief scene of a young teen starlet wanna-be being taken out of Woltz’s house and I think I recall the book exploring it a little further.
Since the characters are somewhat based on real people, was there in real-life a powerful producer who was known for deflowering very young actresses?
Regarding (producer) Jack Wolz: he was a pastiche of several Hollywood producers-probably an amalgam of Louis B. Meyer(of MGM), and Jack Warner (of Warner Bros.) I am quite sure that there was (and is) a fair amount of sex traded for key roles in the movies, and the studio moguls of the 1930’s-40’s were all too willing to take advantage of their power. I’m sure that Mario Puzo heard about the escapades of people like Warner and Meyer, and wove it into the character of Wolz. The only thing I found implausible-in the 1940’s, the studio moguls were kings-they controlled the filming AND the distribution of their movies (the major studios OWNED the theatre chains). In real life, Jack Wolz wouldn’t have given a damn about the Godfather’s threats-he probably had goons of his own who would willingly beat the crap out of Tom hagen.
Which is why Woltz shouts Hagen out of the room twice. First in the studio when he thought Tom was hired muscle to make a threat on Fontaines order. He finds out who Hagen is associated with and out of politness invites him back as he understands how respected and powerful a man oleone is, notice there still is no fear.
When he is pushed he shouts Hagen out of teh house again thinking he is untouchable,
“Tell him I’m no band leader, oh yeah I heard that story…” He knows what the Don is a dangerous man but still is unafriad.
As explained in the book and implied in the movie, when he wakes up in what he conciders the safest place in his house with his prized possesions head in his bed it is a different story.
If the Don can get his men into Woltz’s house have them decapitate his horse in his personal stable and place that in his room without asnyone stopping them or him even waking during this, he knows he could never be protected.
Another thing about the Tom/Michael relationship that’s interesting is that when Tom takes over the family while Michael’s in Cuba, he’s actually a more vicious and bloody boss than Michael. The Don at least stuck to horses, but Michael arranges a dead whore for Senator Geary (speaking of, I love the way G.D. Spradlin so maliciously and condescendingly pronounces the name “Core-lee-own-ee” in his conference with Michael). That was pretty cold.
The Luca subplot in the novel is pretty chilling also, but the book and the movies differ a lot. I think that’s why Puzo never novelized parts II and III was because the movie had already strayed from the Don’s background in the first book.
I wondered with the Vincent character why they made him an illegitimate Corleone. Sonny had at least two legitimate sons and could have had a grown grandson by the late 1970s who could have been the same character.
I just want to say that in the context of this discussion, what happened in the book is irrevelant. I think the movie should be judged on its own merits. If the reasons Tom was squeezed out are unclear to an observant viewer, then that is the fault of the screenplay writer. If you’re going to adapt a book to a movie, you have to be able to do so in a manner that the feel of the book is maintained, without sacraficing coherence.
Normally I’d agree but in this case both the novel and the screen play are from the same person.
Mario Puzo’s Screenplay would have the same reasons as the Novel. He alluded to a few things in the Novel in the screenplay that did not come up on screen. (the several references to Genco comes to mind), because in his mind he was retelling his own story.
It isn’t an interpretation by a second party but a rewrite of his own therefore I believe both can be used equally in any discussion.
