This is the next topic for discussion -- and the next "class" for the "For Scholars Only" page in Section 2 of the site... Nathan and I have already started battling this out, sparked by Mark Calabrese, and here's what we have -- unabridged -- so far (from earliest to lastest): -- At 09:18 AM 4/2/97 -0600, Calabrese, Mark wrote: > >I must take issue w/your answer to the number of New York families. Please >correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the fictional "five families" were as >follows: > >1. Corleone >2. Barzini >3. Tattaglia >4. Cunio >5. Stracci > >What is the name of the sixth family? Please let me know (and your source). > The only other family I can think of is the Bocchicchio family (mentioned >in the book, not in the movie). Thanks. > >Mark Calabrese >markc@art.aon.com > > Hi, Mark (Does your last name indicate your origins? My grandfather was from Calabria ("practically paisan") altho my grandmother was Sicilian:) Yes, the "five" families things was confusing at first for me, too. Peter Biskind's The Godfather Companion book says that The Corleones "were the fictional 6th Family" and I believe him because in GF1, at the cemetary, Michael says "It's a smart move -- Tessio was always smarter. But I'm gonna wait -- after the baptism. I've decided to be Godfather to Connie's baby. And then I'll meet with Barzini -- and Tattaglia -- all the heads of the Five Families" I assume, that if he's going to "meet with...all the heads of the Five Families" that *his* Family is not included in that... Unfortunately, I cannot off hand think of the name of the 6th Family... but when I do, I'll let you know -- and also post the (important) info to the site! Grazie e salute, Geoff -- From: J Geoff Malta To: Calabrese, Mark Subject: Re: question on last trivia contest Date: Thursday, April 03, 1997 10:07PM At 08:07 AM 4/3/97 -0600, Calabrese, Mark wrote: > >As to your question, yes, my family is Calabrese (from Terravecia, a small >village near Cariati). Don't know how it was when you were young, but my >grandparents could take about any ethnic slur except "Sicilian." No slam on >you, just some old history. No slam taken -- as I said, I'm "mixed" ;-) >Not to beat this to death, but (since that was the only question I got >wrong, I think), I'd really like to know about this "sixth family." Keep in >mind that Puzo based his novel, albeit loosely, on the organization of the >families in NY during and immediately after the depression and the war. At >that time, there were 5 families (Genovese, Columbo, et.al.). No big deal >to me, more of a pride thing, really. I hear ya... But do ya think that the heads of the 6 families could be: 1)Corleone 2)Barzini 3)Sollozzo 4)Strachi 5)Cuneo 6)Tattaglia I *do* remember reading somewhere that "The Corleones were the fiction sixth Family" -- I wish I could find that reference! -- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 22:45:52 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Salmon To: J Geoff Malta cc: Nathan Salmon Subject: Re: The 6 Families On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, J Geoff Malta wrote: > > Nathan, I've drawn a blank -- could you please help me complete my list of > the 6 Families: > > 1) Corleone > 2) Tattaglia > 3) Barzini > 4) Strachi > 5) Cuneo > 6) ?? > > I don't think it was Sollozzo... Who the hell was it? > > Consiglieri of mine, why don't you tell your Don what everyone seems to > know... :) > > I needed a drink first. Now I've had my drink. To tell you the truth, I believe there are only five families in the novel, and film, COUNTING THE CORLEONES. In the novel, those familes' names are given at the beginning of the description of the commission meeting. Only the five you listed are given. Compare the GF COMPANION, at pp. 32-33. I believe Biskind is probably wrong about the film's alleged sixth family not mentioned in the novel. I believe Brando says, "Carmine Cuneo"--not "Carmen Coleano," as Biskind says. (Note: Biskind evidently has no special line on these matters. On p. 58, he wonders about a "Don Francesco Valle," when it is clear, I think, that what Sonny (Caan) actually says is "Don Francesco of L.A." This is Frank Falcone in the novel, who is closely allied with the Molinari Family. The latter family is explicitly mentioned by Mike when he is "talking business" with Moe Greene. Combining what Sonny says with what Michael says, the film evidently follows the novel fairly closely here. (That is, Fredo went to Vegas under the protection of the Falcone-Molinari west coast alliance.) It's getting late now, so I won't stop to do it now, but we should look at the working script for Part I to see if it sheds any light on what Brando is saying--"Carmine ...?"--when doing introductions at the commission meeting. Is there any evidence in the novel or film that there are supposed to be six New York families altogether? There is talk about "the Five Families War" in the novel. This would suggest that there are only five altogether. (Not to mention that in real life, there are five.) Let me know if you can discover anything about this question. If not, we should probably throw it open to the Padrino list. I want inquiries made. But I want no acts of vengeance. This mystery stops now. Ciao, Nathan -- Nathan, since it's late now (2am) I will look into this further tomorrow... but let me tonite say... I don't trust Biskind's book as it's chock full of mistakes, as you've mentioned, and plenty of others. It's perhaps the most innaccurate (except maybe The GF Journal) GF book printed, and I'm not a big fan of it. Since last month, there is now a new, definitive book -- and we know which that is! As far as "evidence" I must refer to the film itself, and the transcript of such I've made... There are a few times where "the other 5 Families" is mentioned -- implying that, indeed, there are 5 "other" Families... And in one book (probably Biskinds) I remember reading (but can't find right now) a mention of the Corleones being "the sixth, fictional family." Again, more on this tomorrow -- someone's breaking my balls about the contest question, and I wanna get it right :) Ciao for now mi amico, Geoff -- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 07:05:48 -0800 (PST) From: Nathan Salmon To: J Geoff Malta cc: Nathan Salmon Subject: Re: The 6 Families See below for some responses. On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, J Geoff Malta wrote: > last month, there is now a new, definitive book -- and we know which that is! > I doubt that Harlan's book has anything on this question, since it is concerned almost exclusively with the making of the films, not with arcane details of the story. > As far as "evidence" I must refer to the film itself, and the transcript of > such I've made... There are a few times where "the other 5 Families" is > mentioned -- implying that, indeed, there are 5 "other" Families... And in > one book (probably Biskinds) I remember reading (but can't find right now) a > mention of the Corleones being "the sixth, fictional family." > That's on pp. 32-33 of the GF COMPANION. But as we agree, Biskind is not to be trusted on such matters. I don't recall specific references to "the other five families" in the movie. Let me know if you find any. All I can recall are references to "the heads of the five families." This, unfortunately, is ambiguous, since we can't tell from it whether this is counting the Corleones or not. I rather suspect that IF there is a reference to "the *other* five families" in the movie, then the movie may depart from the novel in this respect. Regarding the novel, see pp. 284-286ff of the Putnam cloth edition. Only the four familes you list, besides the Corleones, are specifically named. And as I say, elsewhere in the novel there is a reference to "the Five Families War" (not "the Six Families War"). > >the working script for Part I to see if it sheds any light on what Brando > >is saying--"Carmine ...?"--when doing introductions at the commission > >meeting. > > I did this. The relevant passage is on p. 104 of my copy. No help there. Sorry I can't be of more help, GF. The situation may simply be ambiguous. I wouldn't be surprised if even Mario couldn't tell you whether there are 5 or 6 New York families altogether in the story. My best assessment of the matter is this: In the novel there appear to be only five New York families. Whether the movie follows the novel in this respect is very difficult to tell. If there is indeed a reference to "the other five families," then I should think that that settles it: there are six altogether in the movie. Otherwise, the only evidence that there are 6 is the Biskind evidence, and that strikes me as very weak. Please do let me know whether you're able to discover the answer in either the working script or the actual screenplay. Ciao, Nathan -- At 07:05 AM 4/5/97 -0800, Nathan Salmon wrote: >That's on pp. 32-33 of the GF COMPANION. But as we agree, Biskind is not >to be trusted on such matters. I don't recall specific references to "the .... There it is :) Although Biskind's not the best source, he does list 6 Families on that page: Stracci, Cuneo, Barzini, Tattaglia, Coleano (whoever), and Corleone. Now, did The Don mean "Cuneo" when he said "Coleano," which sounded like "Corleone" to me? Let me look at some evidence... >From the film: - "Don Barzini, I want to thank you for helping me organize this meeting here today. And also the other heads of the Five Families -- New York and New Jersey. Carmine Coleano from the Bronx, and uh, Brooklyn - Philip Tattaglia. An' from Staten Island, we have with us Victor Stracci..." Now, there are five listed above (the 6th would be Cuneo--if he's separate from Coleano). - "It's a smart move -- Tessio was always smarter. But I'm gonna wait -- after the baptism. I've decided to be Godfather to Connie's baby. And then I'll meet with Don Barzini -- and Tattaglia -- all the heads of the Five Families..." Now, if Michael's going to "meet" with all the heads of the Five Families, he cannot mean himself! - "Well, I say yes. There's more money potential in narcotics than anything else we're looking at. Now if we don't get into it, somebody else will. Maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them. Now with the money they earn, they can buy more police and political power; then they come after us." Tom seems to say "if we don't get into it, maybe one or all of the Five Families will, and then come after us (the 6th Family)" - This doesn't spread any light, but who's Garbone? "...it's a lot of bad blood. Sollozzo, Phililp Tattaglia, Bruno Tattaglia, Garbone, ..." (Michael: "You kill all those guys?") - "What you have to understand, Sonny, is that while Sollozzo is being guarded like this, he in invulnerable. Now nobody has ever gunned down a NY police captain -- never. It would be disastrous. All the Five Families would come after you, Sonny. The Corleone Family would be outcasts!" Tom says it right there! - But the baptism montage doesn't shed a lot of (clear) light: "Barzini's dead (courhouse). So is Philip Tattaglia (bedroom), Moe Greene (massage table), Strachi (elevator), Cuneo (revolving door). Today I settle all Family business..." Now, somewhere I read that Strachi was in the elevator with another Don, and the elevator operator (there were 3 people). Who's the third Don? And why didn't Michael mention a 5th name, like Vito didn't really mention a 5th name at the commission meeting? - Above, I think I've presented evidence of 6 Families, as well as other vague references to the Families, which doesn't prove/disprove my point... The novel... I'm not reading the novel carefully here, but here are some sentences that stick out, that can be taken both ways. (I may be taking them out of context, of course!) "Of the five New York Families opposing the Corleones, his [Stracci's] was the least powerful" (When read out of context, like I'm doing, this can be read as 5 or 6 total Families) "The representatives of the Five Families of New York were the last to arrive..." (Now, the Corleones were already there!) "Besides the Five Families of New York, there were representatives from ten other Families across the country..." (This, however, is clearly against my point--unless it's taken from the mind of The Corleones) So, Consiglieri of mine, where are we now on this? :) Geoff -- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:02:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathan Salmon Reply-To: Nathan Salmon To: J Geoff Malta cc: Nathan Salmon , Harlan Lebo Subject: Re: The 5 or 6 Families Very good work, GF! I'm impressed. But I'm not quite convinced. Actually (and this is how I can justify using my university email account on such matters), the issue here bears directly on my field of scholarly expertise, which is the philosophy of language. I'll spare you all the bloody details (there are many books on the topic, including two by me). The long and the short of it is this: There is a distinction between the phrases "the five families" and "the Five Families." The former is descriptive, the latter is a name--on an analogy between, say, "the inventor of bifocals" and "Benjamin Franklin." To present a rather extreme form of the (capitalized) name use, the most powerful faculty committee at Princeton (where I taught for several years before coming out here to the Coast) is the Committee of Three. In the beginning it indeed had three members. When I was at Princeton it had nine members, and probably still does. Out of respect for tradition (which is a genuine obsession at Princeton), the committee is still officially called "the Committee of Three." Interestingly, the *name* of the committee is thought to be somehow more significant, more sacrosanct, than the number of its membership, which no doubt gradually grew over a long period of time from 3 to 9. Something similar is true in the Jewish faith with regard to the name of God. (I was raised Jewish, though I'm not a practicing Jew today. Like most Jews I've known, I'm actually a rather staunch atheist.) Jews believe they are prohibited from using the name of God in vain. (That name is "Jehovah," or rather the original Hebrew version of it.) When the name shows up, even in a prayer, the one reciting the prayer does not utter the name, and instead substitutes a Hebrew phrase, which means something like "our Lord"--which evidently isn't quite as sacrosanct as the name. Go figure. At Princeton, the words "the Committee of Three" actually designate what is, in fact, the academic personnel committee, regardless of its membership. By contrast, a phrase like "the faculty committee whose members are three" (note the absence of capitalization) will designate that faculty committee whose membership is exactly three, if there is exactly one such committee (and will designate nothing otherwise). There are many other such examples in the literature on this subject. A couple are "the United Nations," which is often anything but united, and "the Holy Roman Empire," which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. These are names rather than descriptions, otherwise they would not designate as they do. Getting back to our question, let's assume that the New York crime families, being the most powerful in the country, form a kind of consortium. It would be natural for the underworld to use the phrase "the Five Families" in the style of "the Committee of Three" and "the Holy Roman Empire" as a name, rather than a description, for that consortium. If the number of New York crime families were for some reason reduced to four, the underworld might change the name to "the Four Families," but they might just as easily continue on, for the sake of tradition, with "the Five Families." Similarly if the number grew to six. In fact, however, and also in the story, the number of New York crime families is fairly constant--at least throughout all, or nearly all, of Part I of the story (though who knows what the number of families is by the time Michael's new godson is finished being baptised). So the Five Familes would consist of all the major New York crime families. In that case, all of the passages you quote would be consistent with there being only five altogether, including the Corleones. For example, when Tom warns that "all the Five Families would come after you, Sonny," he would mean that the consortium (of which the Corleones are a member) would come after the Corleones (one of the consortium's own). And when Tom says, "maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them," he might mean that maybe one member of their consortium of New York crime families would get into the drug trade, and maybe all of the member families, other than the Corleones, would (so that the consortium itself, as an entity, would be squarely in the drug business, even if the Corleones were not themselves involved in that particular enterprise of their consortium's). The most difficult piece of evidence for this hypothesis to accommodate is when Puzo says, "Of the five NY families opposing the Corleones, his was the weakest." But if the phrase "five families" were capitalized (arguably a mere grammatical error on Puzo's part, and that of his copyeditor), this *could* be interpreted as "of the Five Families consortium opposing one of their own, Stracci's was the weakest member family." I don't know how plausible this interpretation is, or for that matter, how plausible the entire hypothesis is. It is possible that Tom, and Puzo, et. al., use the phrase "the Five Families" not as a name (despite the capitalization), but as a genuine description. This would support the six-families-altogether hypothesis, since they use the phrase almost always to refer to the other families, excluding the Corleones. On the other hand, the analogy with "the Committee of Three" and "the United Nations" and "the Holy Roman Empire" is somewhat compelling. Also the mere presence of capitalization (not "the five families" but "the Five Families") strongly suggests the name hypothesis, which supports the five-families-altogether hypothesis. I believe the reference in the novel to "the Five Families War" is also compelling evidence--though certainly not decisive. The problem is that NONE of the evidence, even taken in total, is decisive, as far as I can tell. Probably the only thing that *might* count as decisive is an official determination by Mario himself. I DO think, though, that your evidence for the six-altogether hypothesis is significant and cannot be summarily dismissed. So I don't know what to say. Lacking an official pronouncement from Mario, I'd have to say that the issue is ambiguous and still undetermined. Ciao, Nathan -- BTW, Harlan -- I think Nathan brought you in here in the middle of our argument (scholarly, of course) of whether there was a total of 5 or 6 NY Families ... At 11:02 AM 4/6/97 -0700, Nathan Salmon wrote: > >Very good work, GF! I'm impressed. You should have bowed your head, toasted me, and said "my compliments" :) >But I'm not quite convinced. Actually (and this is how I can justify >using my university email account on such matters), the issue here bears >directly on my field of scholarly expertise, which is the philosophy of >language. I'll spare you all the bloody details (there are many books on >the topic, including two by me). The long and the short of it is this: >There is a distinction between the phrases "the five families" and "the >Five Families." The former is descriptive, the latter is a name--on an That is very true, Nathan, and I agree with the caps issue. However, keep in mind that all use of caps and lower case in my transcript of the film was determined by me. This may seem obvious, but I use "family" for a related group of people (the Corleone family was Vito, Carmella, Sonny, Mary, ...) and I use "Family" for the business group (the Corleone Family was Vito, Sonny, Clemenza, Paulie, ...) Now, instead of: >Getting back to our question, let's assume that the New York crime >families, being the most powerful in the country, form a kind of I'd have written: "...New York crime Families..." or even "New York Crime Families" -- or safer even: "New York ALLEGED Crime Families" :) >consortium. It would be natural for the underworld to use the phrase "the >Five Families" in the style of "the Committee of Three" ... Although you may be correct, we do have to remember that this is a fictional story (I hate to say that!), and regardless of which real-life persons influenced Puzo in the development of the characters, we must take the story at face value. Of course the novel and the films aren't quite in sync, which makes it more difficult -- but we still cannot assume that "The Five Families" refers to the real-life five Families. [I'm rambling now, and probably not making sense, nor even helping my cause] Anyway, I think the capitalization of "five" makes or breaks the group-name theory you presented. In the novel, where capitalization is obvious, the first of the following three sentences has a different meaning than the latter two: > "Of the five New York Families opposing the Corleones, his [Stracci's] was > the least powerful" (When read out of context, like I'm doing, this can be > read as 5 or 6 total Families) > > "The representatives of the Five Families of New York were the last to > arrive..." (Now, the Corleones were already there!) > > "Besides the Five Families of New York, there were representatives from ten > other Families across the country..." (This, however, is clearly against my > point--unless it's taken from the mind of The Corleones) G*d, I can't "verbalize" my point right, so I'm going to stop for now and try to gather my thoughts later... >however, and also in the story, the number of New York crime families is >fairly constant--at least throughout all, or nearly all, of Part I of the >story (though who knows what the number of families is by the time >Michael's new godson is finished being baptised). So the Five Familes >would consist of all the major New York crime families. Evidently, after GF1's baptism, the number of Families in the Five Families was reduced to one :) >In that case, all of the passages you quote would be consistent with there >being only five altogether, including the Corleones. For example, when Tom >warns that "all the Five Families would come after you, Sonny," he would >mean that the consortium (of which the Corleones are a member) would come >after the Corleones (one of the consortium's own). And when Tom says, >"maybe one of the Five Families, maybe all of them," he might mean that >maybe one member of their consortium of New York crime families would get >into the drug trade, and maybe all of the member families, other than the >Corleones, would (so that the consortium itself, as an entity, would be >squarely in the drug business, even if the Corleones were not themselves >involved in that particular enterprise of their consortium's). Although I see your point, I'm not sure I totally buy it... but I'll get back to you on this... Perhaps Harlan has some input on this? >The most difficult piece of evidence for this hypothesis to accommodate is >when Puzo says, "Of the five NY families opposing the Corleones, his was >the weakest." But if the phrase "five families" were capitalized (arguably >a mere grammatical error on Puzo's part, and that of his copyeditor), this >*could* be interpreted as "of the Five Families consortium opposing one of >their own, Stracci's was the weakest member family." > >I don't know how plausible this interpretation is, or for that matter, how >plausible the entire hypothesis is. It is possible that Tom, and Puzo, et. >al., use the phrase "the Five Families" not as a name (despite the >capitalization), but as a genuine description. This would support the >six-families-altogether hypothesis, since they use the phrase almost >always to refer to the other families, excluding the Corleones. On the >other hand, the analogy with "the Committee of Three" and "the United >Nations" and "the Holy Roman Empire" is somewhat compelling. Also the mere >presence of capitalization (not "the five families" but "the Five >Families") strongly suggests the name hypothesis, which supports the >five-families-altogether hypothesis. True -- I'm just wondering how much though Puzo put into that... I have a feeling not all that much >I believe the reference in the novel to "the Five Families War" is also >compelling evidence--though certainly not decisive. The problem is that >NONE of the evidence, even taken in total, is decisive, as far as I can >tell. Probably the only thing that *might* count as decisive is an >official determination by Mario himself. > >I DO think, though, that your evidence for the six-altogether hypothesis >is significant and cannot be summarily dismissed. So I don't know what to >say. Lacking an official pronouncement from Mario, I'd have to say that >the issue is ambiguous and still undetermined. I will ask Mario, but after 28 years, he probably doesn't remember or know, either :) Regardless, I will have to add this stream to the For Scholars Only section on the site -- I haven't added anything in a while ;) Ciao e grazie i miei amici! Geoff -- 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