GODFATHER CLASS #2 : Who was the "Godfather"? Vito or Michael? It may seem obvious, right, that Brando played the "Godfather" ... right? Hmmm.... -- 1/21 Here's an interesting question for the group: Who is the title character in GF1? As we follow the entire saga, we see that the title role of "The Godfather" is that of Michael Corleone throughout nearly all of GF2 and GF3. If there is to be a GF4, it may well be that Vincent will be "The Godfather" by that time. But which character does the title "The Godfather" signify in Part I? Is it Vito? Or is it Michael? Or is it both of them? Whose hand is that symbolically holding the strings in the familiar GF logo? It is extremely tempting to say that Vito is "The Godfather" of GF1. Before GF2 was made, nearly everyone would have said that Marlon Brando plays the title role. I'll bet that's what all the movie reviews at the time DID say. And for good reason. The character of Vito is absolutely central. He is the dominant figure, larger than life, a character of almost mythical proportions. Only extremely charismatic actors like Brando and Robert DeNiro could play such a character convincingly. The character's legacy even lives on throughout GF3, with the Vito Andolini Corleone Foundation, and with such lines as "Learn from your father" (Don Altobello to Michael), and "You're the only one with my father's strength" (Connie to Vincent), etc. Nevertheless, it has always been my view that the title "The Godfather" actually, and cleverly, signifies Michael even in GF1, and in the original Puzo novel. Michael is the protagonist. And for all his central, bigger-than-life presence, Vito is more of a supporting character, an irresistible plot device. The whole point of the story in GF1 is the corrupting effects of growing up in the Family, that despite his (and Vito's) determination and the best of intentions, Michael's destiny was beyond his control. It's true that Michael didn't have to get directly involved. He could have chosen to stay out of the Family "business." It was his idea, not Sonny's, for example, for him to gun down Sollozo and McKluskey. He freely chose to join in, to become an active participant. But more realistically, Michael never had any *real* choice. Inevitably, one way or another, he was destined to become the Godfather. (The concept of destiny is a theme that is repeated here and there throughout the novel. The Don often says that every man has but one destiny.) If I'm right, the title role in all three GF films is played by the very same guy: Al Pacino. What do others think? -- 2/3 Nathan...Regarding the last note I have from you about the "real GF". I favor the idea of Marlon Brando as *THE* Godfather just from sheer charisma of the character. Michael and Vincent will always be the "sons" in my mind. As you pointed out, there are references throughout the movies about Vito as the GF and how the sons learn from him or are compared to him. Besides, Vito earned it on his own to give origin to the family. While Michael can write the book on building power, he and Vincent are regarded more as forces that preserved the family. Make sense?? -- 2/3 I agree with you Nathan that Michael was the Godfather in all three films. .. Vito, who in all respects was a Don in his own right, represented, at first, the life that Michael despised. Until, evidently, he got a taste of it after shooting Sollozzo and McCluskey. He still had the Family honor to pull this off. He loved his father, and not only became him, but became an exaggeration of him. He was even more ruthless than Vito. Without knowing Vito in Part I, and his background in Part II, we'd never know what Michael had to live "up" to in a way... About the logo, remember Vito tells Michael: "I refused to be the fool, dancing on the strings held by those bigshots... (pezzonovante)." I assume these are the strings. But the Godfather is a bigshot as well, right? Just a thought: Perhaps the "hand" holding the strings represents the "proper" society (truly run by pezzonovante I believe), and he *is* dancing on the strings... The strings do end at the words "The Godfather." It may appear that mob folk are separate and apart from society, with their own rules and rulers... but who, in the end, shows to be the true "ruler" with the "real" "rules"? Look at John Gotti :) They try so hard to NOT "dance" on the strings (go along with the masses controled by "authority"), but I think, to a point, that may be impossible. It *is* admirable to try not to dance on the strings, and some succeed; who wants to go "along with the masses," at least with that 'control' theme? And I think we even try *not* to a lot of the times, but ultimately, we are one society and have to play by the rules -- right? Just one cents' worth of my two cents... :) [it's a little rambling, I know, but there's an Al Pacino interview on HBO about 'Heat' right now :)] -- 2/3 Geoff, do you still have my complete posting concerning who is the GF in GF1? I don't. But I gave my reasons for thinking that it was Michael, rather than Vito. I know Donald saw it, but the two new members may not have. I agree with Donald that Vito is more admirable than Michael and Vincent, more charismatic, etc. As I said, only the world's most charismatic actors (like Brando and DeNiro) could portray him convincingly. And I LIKE Vito better than Michael and Vincent. He's much warmer; the other two are sometimes EXTREMELY cold-blooded. (Not that Michael doesn't suffer pangs of conscience over killing his own brother!) But I still think that the story in GF1 is Michael's story, not Vito's. Michael is the central character, the protagonist. And I suspect that the title "The Godfather" was meant by Mario Puzo as a clever way of referring to Michael, who becomes the Don by the end of GF1. -- 2/4 P.S. Michael is the Godfather. The book and movie are not about a man who has achieved great power. That would simply be to boring. They are about the family and the FAMILY. That is where Michael enters. He is distraught by his father's business but takes control of it. Who would go watch a movie about a man building up a business. When the family element enters the movie another dimension is added. Michael who never wants to be a man like his father is even more ruthless than Vito. Perhaps because of the age difference-Vito may have mellowed in his older years. -- 2/5 I also agree that the first real "Godfather" is Vito. However, Michael comes a close second. I never felt Santino was a true Godfather, just the acting Don. Vincent... naa. -- 2/5 Vito was the best Godfather! -- 2/6 In my opinion Vito is the real Godfather not Mike or Vincent. -- 2/8 My name is Matteo and i like your insite on the godfather page and the films. I believe that Michael is the tru Godfather. Becasue he does it all and he was the Godfather in all the films. I believe that the Godfather logo represents how Michael forever was dancing on the strings of organized crime. He never wanted to do it but he was trapped. He must make alliances that he does not want. We all must dance on the strings of the Pezzonavanta. I am dancing on them as I write to you. So I believe that Michael was the true Don. -- 2/19 Indeed, Don Vito was the embodiment of power, respect, and strength, and his aura was portrayed throughout each of these masterpieces. But it is not fair to say that Vito was the central character because the film focusses equally upon Michael. But it is my opinion that Michael actually searches and strives to encompass the same strength that his father had. Vito was more loved than feared, whereas Michael was more feared than loved. He respected and loved his father more than life itself. Michael was the only son that had the manner and the mental strength to become the Don, and Vito knew this since his birth. If you remeber Vito talking to Michael on the steps of their apartment in Part II, "Michael, your father loves you very much". He always knew Fredo was to weak and timid, Sonny was always crying as a baby and these characteristics were the same in adulthood. Vito never wanted Michael to be involved with the business. So, back to my point, Michael lives through his fathers ideals and strives to be the person that his father is and once was throughout the films. He never makes peace with himself. In a sense, Michael would like say that he and his father are the same, but unfortunately it doeasn't work out the way he planned. One can see his personal hell that plagues his mind and ends up being the death of him. It depends which way you view the movie, in my view, both characters are equally relevant. Although the focus seems to be on Vito early on, it is a precursor to the building of Michael's character. The focus then dramatically and everso cleverly shifts towards Michael. The movie is a masterpiece, what more can I say? -- HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM ROGER EBERT'S REVIEW OF THE GODFATHER... "The Godfather himself is not even the central character in the drama. That position goes to the youngest, brightest son, Michael, who understands the nature of his father's position while revisiting his old-fashioned ways." "Those who have read the novel may be surprised to find Michael at the center of the movie, instead of Don Corleone. In fact, this is simply an economical way for Coppola to get at the heart of the Puzo story, which dealth with the transfer of power within the family." "Marlon Brando, who plays the Godfather as a shrewd, unbreakable old man, actually has the character lead in the movie; Al Pacino, with a brilliantly developed performance as Michael, is the lead." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have any input on this subject, feel free to post on the Message Board or Mailing List. See the chat page for info: http://www.jgeoff.com/godfather/chat.html ciao, Geoff