I’m watching. Not for the first time. But I’m struck by how quickly Vito turned from being a wholly honorable man to a common robber. Clemenza offers his a rub. They go and steal it.
Yes, he lost his job. But my gosh, what a flipflop. What else happened to indicate that he was in fact just another hoodlum?
Cartooniverse
You hadn’t, to that point, seen any evidence he was averse to stealing. He was honorable in the sense of being devoted to his family and kind to people who did right by him, but nowhere it it shown that he is opposed to breaking the law to his own advantage.
Clemenza kind of breaks him in easy, prentending up to a point that he’s NOT stealing the rug. He doesn’t tell Vito, “Let’s go rob some idiot’s house,” he sort of pretends it’s okay. Vito’s in deep by the time it’s clear they’re burglars.
If I’d lost my job and had no money and no prospects, I gotta tell you, it wouldn’t be hard to convince me to steal to support my family, especially if it was a day and age when crime was rampant and easy to get away with. It would make me sick to my stomach to steal so much as a candy bar, but if my child being fed is at stake I’d steal, cheat and con. It’s easy for me to be high and mighty now, because I’m doing okay and have many safety nets if things go awry - but if those safety nets were not in place I’d swipe your wallet to feed my daughter. And you can get used to that sort of thing.
More than just being unemployed and penniless and with a sick baby, Vito had seen- both in Corleone and now in New York- that leading an honest and religious and law abiding life was great and its own reward in principal, but in practice it was the same as bending over whenever the local pezzonovanti (be it Don Ciccio back in Sicily or Don Fanucci in Little Italy) said “Please pardon me while I screw you”. He may or may not have known of life outside of Little Italy, but if he did he knew (and if he didn’t he probably had figured out) that it was the same whether you were Sicilian, Irish, Polish, Catholic, Jew, black, or Chinese: if you weren’t a WASP and especially if you were an immigrant you were at the bottom of the social ladder, if you were a WASP but not a rich one you still had to put up with bullying from those with power, and the world was based on hypocrisy (the church may not sanction the actions of Don Fanucci, but they’d certainly take his money, while the cops and the politicians would turn a blind eye so long as he let them “wet their beaks”.
There’s a deleted scene on the extras reel in which Vito sees, from behind cover, several tough guys beat and mug Don Fanucci. I’m not sure exactly where this would fit in the story- whether it’s before or after he helps Clemenza steal the rug- but either way, it’s a major revelation to him. Everybody lives in terror of Fanucci because in addition to being tough himself he’s in with The Black Hand, a big shot Cosa Nostra boss who’s untouchable. Vito now sees that this is bunk: he’s tough, but he’s touchable.
Vito’s father, mother, and brother have all been killed by the mafia. Vito’s been cast into destitution so that Don Fanucci can have a tiny bit more luxury and so Fanucci’s worthless nephew can have a job (one with which you know he’s not going to do anymore than he feels like doing). Not only is Vito reduced to greater poverty than he already knew, but his friend and employer [basically his foster father] Abbandando, who’s actually successful by the standards of Little Italy- even he has no power to stand up to the Don. Vito’s sick and bloody tired of it, and he knows that the only way to get out of this serfdom is to
1- leave Little Italy and hope it’s better somewhere else, which is next to impossible since he’s broke, barely speaks the language, and besides which he’s probably figured out it’s not really better anywhere else
2- kill the Don- but he knows that this is beheading a hydra, they’ll be more to take his place tomorrow and the next one could be worse [Fanucci being at least the devil you know versus the devil you don’t know]
3- become the pezzonovante
Vito’s probably already clocked that religion is largely hollow- if he’s not an atheist he’s probably at least agnostic (I don’t recall him ever making a comment that would imply he’s religious), so from that angle practicality is far more important than morality. From the moral and ethical angles, if he takes down and becomes the don, then HE can make a difference: no more shaking down and intimidating honest grocers for tribute without offering anything in return. Once he’s in charge he’ll make his money by offering real protection for money received (he gets tribute, but if your store gets robbed- I’ll find out who did it- your brother-in-law’s about to be deported on a bogus charge, I’ll talk to some friends at city hall) and from shaking down men who deserve to be shook down (the man who’s going to evict the widow for having a dog) and, most of all, from “victimless crimes”- gambling, drinking [during Prohibition], being banker for most of the numbers games in his territory, perhaps some loan sharking and other not so victimless crimes as well, but mainly messing only with those who deserve it and controlling the vice on the streets. And of course as much as possible of this money he funnels into legitimate businesses: olive oil imports, real estate, trucking, etc., so that his children and grandchildren can be honest men, for the Don VERY much is sacrificing himself as a legacy to his family, mortgaging his soul so their’s can stay clean. Of course, it doesn’t work out that way or it’d be a short movie.
Relevant quotes from GODFATHER 1:
And in possibly the only time they’ve ever been compared (though I wouldn’t be surprised to find I’m wrong), this 1780 quote from John Adams to his wife is relevant:
The Don “studies” crime and political control so that his sons may have liberty to study banking and real estate, so that their children can donate to museums and campaigns and host garden parties with the priests and the politicians and the blue bloods.
PS- It also occurs you could draw some parallels between Vito and Hannibal Lecter or Dexter Morgan. All three experienced childhood traumas (the murders of their parents) and all three emerged with little if any faith (again, this is conjecture with the Don, but there’s nothing to contradict it- in the book and in the original ending of the movie his wife and Kay go to light candles and pray as they tend to the spiritual needs of the family) and all three have figured that “I need revenge and there’s a lot of folks who deserve to die” (or at least be messed with in the Don’s case- you never get that he enjoys killing, just that he’s willing to if it’s expedient). All three have their own very strict code of ethics- one that’s often at odds with social and religious ethics, but strict nonetheless.
As with Hannibal and Dexter you know that they’re whitewashed: you respect and admire Corleone, but even with his ethics you know that he causes misery. While he may not reach into a till and slap around a grocer, you can be pretty sure some of his street soldiers aren’t above it, and that to some degree he turns a blind eye to it, and of course gambling and alcohol aren’t really victimless (it’s doubtful the Don would order one of his bookies to refuse a bet placed by a man who can’t afford to lose that money), but he’s better than most of the alternatives would be. You get that he’s a much more noble and ethical character than Barzini (total backstabber and liar) or Tattaglia (whose pimping Corleone clearly looks down on) for example, and probably moreso than Tessio or Clemenza (who probably wouldn’t have been nearly as concerned with the reciprocal aspects of being a padrone).
Coppola has also said that he felt the first movie went too far in romanticizing the Mafia and he wanted to show in the second movie that they were, in fact, criminals and not sympathetic figures.
Why did Vito go to Don Fanucci with the lowball ‘beak wetting’ offer - his first ‘offer he can’t refuse’ - in the first place? He makes the lowball offer, Fanucci accepts it and seems to offer Vito and his buddies a role in his organization, and then Vito (who has clearly already prepared for this) kills Fanucci during the festival. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Was it a test of Fanucci, in that Fanucci accepting less indicated that he was weak somehow? If so, it would have been clearer if Vito had just said ‘that’s all I’ll give you, old man’ and Fanucci had taken the insult. Instead it comes off as Vito cleverly asking for a job and Fanucci noting his mettle and respecting him for it, while remaining the boss.
If it was to conceal his motive for killing Fanucci (hey, I liked the guy, he just offered me a job), then why lowball the offer? Why not pay up and appear to be in Fanucci’s good graces that way? He was just going to get the money back from the corpse anyway. I did notice that he didn’t put any of his own money under the hat, however.
It seems that it would have been much simpler for Vito to just shoot Fanucci without going through the rigamarole of the meeting and the payoff. He already had the gun stashed, so it seems like the shooting was a foregone conclusion by that point.
I agree that Vito saw the world as dog-eat-dog. However, he was smart enough to realize that violence made no sense-which is why he opposed the drug trade.How different was his 'family" from a government-sanctioned monopoly (like the tobacco industry)? Both supply dangerous products-and the government tacitly approves.
As for 1900’s NYC-the city government, the police, and the church all had made deals-Vito saw himself as just another businessman. the book doesn’t touch much on Prohibition-which (to me) appeared to be the biggest bonanza ever handed out to organized crime. As for Hyman Roth-his real-life character (Meyer lansky0 made his fortune controlling the illegal horse race betting system-something don Vito’s "Genco puro Olive Oil co.0 probably wasn’t involved in.
Fanucci first tipped off his weakness by threatening to go to the police. If he’s really so powerful, then he wouldn’t have to use such a threat. Vito then lowballed him as a test to find out how weak he was. He wouldn’t have killed Fanucci until he was sure that Fanucci really had no one backing him up. Fanucci’s acceptance of so little money was a sign that he had no strength or organization that would come looking for revenge.
And Vito was proven right when, aside from his own payoff, there was almost no money in Fanucci’s wallet.
I was always puzzled by the necessity of meeting and negotiating with Fanucci in the cafe, as well, if he was just planning on offing him anyway.
Here’s a thought: Vito just needed this meeting to locate Fanucci at the time of the festa, as he had planned to shoot him when the neighborhood was all out in the streets and not paying attention. Once he zeroed in on him, Vito could follow him and choose his time for the killing.
I think Vito wanted witnesses to see Fanucci leaving the meeting. Vito then hauled ass, sneaking across rooftops, to intercept Fanucci in the foyer of his own building. No one would suspect Vito of the crime (well, except for Clemenza & Tessio).
It taught Vito something else as well- no accomplices means no getting caught, or at least the odds go waaaaaaaay down.
The handling of Fanucci also gave Vito major cred with his cohorts. Remember, they don’t know he only offered F $100. And they each told F no problem, Vito will bring you the money. So: F believes Vito has at least $200 on him but is only giving him $100, and believes he is swindling his friends. This, he respects.
The other two friends know that (1) he somehow convinced F to take less and (2) holy crap! Fanucci is now dead! And there are never any repercussions. From all sides, Vito comes out looking like a man to be reckoned with.
Plus the neighborhood still thinks Fanucci was a total bad ass, so the man who killed him (which they all know is Vito but of course the cops don’t get involved) is seen as a lot tougher than he really is.
Vito personally kills Fanucci (advancement) and Ciccio (revenge and also to put an ally in his place). In deleted scenes he kills two of Ciccio’s former thugs who were there when his mother was killed (and who may have killed his father and brother). Does he personally kill anybody else in the movies or series?
I took Fanucci’s acceptance of the lesser money as meaning that Vito was acknowledging that he now owed Fanucci a favor. So that Fanucci viewed having an up-and-comer like Vito owe him a favor (i.e., performing a future task) was as good as getting the money.
The importance of favors is especially dominant in the first film.
Vito also now had several witnesses that things appeared smooth between him and Fanucci just before the latter’s unfortunate demise.
The most damning thing from the book that wasn’t included in the films was the back-story on Luca Brazi’s loyalty. In the book:
Michael learns while in Sicily that at one point Luca had been involved with a woman who becomes pregnant with a child that Luca doesn’t want. When the child is born Luca takes it from the midwife’s arms and throws it into the furnace (I don’t remember if eh killed the mother or not, it’s been a while since I read the book). The Don had this covered up, used bribery and threats to make the midwife return to Sicily [where she tells Michael the story] and from that day Luca will gladly walk through fire for Don Corleone.
This is at serious odds with any ethics the Don may express. OTOH, he probably saw it as a "you can never have a cold blooded psycho too much in your debt. (It’s way more interesting than the long and pointless subplot about Lucy Mancini’s giant vagina, which I’ve never understood why Puzo’s editor allowed to remain in the book.)
I don’t recall anything in the book or in the movies to imply the Don has ever fooled around. There is a scene in the novel in which Connie comes to him and tells him about Carlo’s abusiveness and he and Mama Corleone basically brush her aside and even laugh. When she asks “Did you ever beat Mama?” he says something to the effect of “She never needed it, and we tried to warn you about Carlo but you wouldn’t listen.” He does nothing about it, which is why she turns to Sonny.
That’s part of the whole Johnny Fontaine can’t sing/abortion doctor subplot, isn’t it?
When Vito returns to sicily 9to avenge his parent’s and brother’s murders), he is respectable-he is nicely dressed, and has money. So why whack the old don? It would have made more sense to have taken over from him, and left the old don to die in poverty. But i suppose it was justice. One gets the impression that pretty much everybody hated the don-as Vito was able to leave unhindered by the carabiniere.
I wish Puzo has written more about the Corleone outfit after 1932 (end of Prohibition)-maybe a tie-in with an up-and-coming guy named joe kennedy?
No, it was revenge, which is not correlated with justice.
Most of the story took place in the 1950s-1970s, didn’t it? It was mostly after 1932.
Joe Kennedy had already accomplished a good deal of success on Wall Street, in the movie industry, and in real estate by the time he became a legal liquor distributor. The idea that he was involved with illegal alcohol during Prohibition seems to be pure conjecture.
The “Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger” rumor seems to have sprung up largely in recent years; and it seems to be propogated mainly by people who want to tarnish JFK’s reputation.
What are recent years? I remember the rumors from the 70s.
I don’t know if they are true or not but I do recall them.