Both Sonny and Mike both told Tom, he wasn't a wartime consiglieri. Why difference did it make that he wasn't a wartime consiglieri? Tom seemed to be very good and effective as a peacetime lawyer.

Sonny even went as far as saying:

SONNY

Well you just do what I tell you to do! Goddamn it! If I had a wartime consiglieri -- a

Sicilian -- I wouldn't be in this shape! Pop had Genco -- look what I got.


What was so great about Genco? Wasn't Vito smarter and braver then Genco? Genco ran away when he saw that his girlfriend was being threatened, while Vito, went after Fanucci when Fanucci tried to extort him.

Courage is not necessarily a salient nor required characteristic of a Consigliori; intelligence and cunning is. As the novel noted several times, Genco was wise and cunning and helped propel Vito to the heights he achieved.

With that said, for someone that didn't read the novel, I think that they would have the impression that Genco was a cafone.

Cafone? No. My point is that he was far from it.

That's the key point. In the novel Puzo says that Tom himself realized he was unfit as a wartime consiglieri when Sonny got whacked. He realized that Genco never would have been fooled by the opposition's laying low for so long, but would have smelled a rat, would have interpreted it as a ruse, and therefore would have doubled and tripled his precautions (p.269).

Good points, all.

Slightly off topic- I still think Michael was too hard on Tom in blaming him for Sonny's death.

While I agree that Sonny's temper led to his demise, the Corleone enemies knew that his temper was his greatest weakness and used it against him. That's where I think Tom was at fault for not being able to tell Sonny "cool it." The enemy laid the trap with Connie's beating by Carlo, hoping it would ignite Sonny into blind rage. While Sonny was this mad, he was capable of anything. Tom had an obligation the Corleone Family to rein in Sonny's anger and make Sonny think of the consequences of his actions as they applied to the Family. This did not happen - Sonny brushed Tom off after receiving the call from Connie and Sonny was ambushed at the causeway.

I understand that, but again to people that didn't read the novel, and with the limited screen time that Genco got, it would appear that he wasn't that smart of an individual. He was only shown as a man that feared coming to the aid of his girlfriend, and the person who the olive oil company was named after. His only scene in GFI was him dying in the hospital was ended up on the cutting room floor.

I am not denying the fact that he was in all probability a great concler, I am only saying that we really didn't see much of him on the screen, and what we did see, wasn't that impressive.

Neither Tom nor anyone else could have cooled Sonny's temper permanently. But, I believe Tom could be blamed for not realizing that Carlo would lust for revenge after being publicly beaten and humiliated by Sonny. Tom's lawyerly training in logic and conciliation would have let him to believe that Carlo ultimately wouldn't bite the hand that fed him. If he were wearing his "Sicilian hat," he'd have recognized that, in matters of "honor," logic takes a backseat to vengeance. In the novel (as has been pointed out elsewhere), Tom concludes, on his own, that "old Genco would have smelled a rat."

Ah the old "street smarts" vs. "book smarts"! Good one Turnbull........I will take street smarts any day.

Genco backed away rather than confront Fanucci openly, which was probably a smart decision if Fanucci was connected, and certainly while Fanucci was threatening his girlfriend with a knife to her face. When Vito made his move against Fanucci he set it up by first behaving in a manner that convinced Fanucci he was cowed, then laying in wait for him in a dark hallway.

In making the comparision of the manner in which Vito and Genco dealt with Fanucci, the most notable factor is that Genco showed fear, and from all indications, did nothing to retaliate against Fanucci, while on the other hand Vito never showed any feared, and in fact Fannucci gave him credit:

FANUCCI [in Italian]

You've got balls, young man! How come I never heard of you before? You've got a lot of guts. I'll find you some work for good money.


All I am saying is that from what is shown of Genco, it doesn't appear as though he showed much courage or intelligence.

Vito ambushed Fanucci. That's courage?

There's nothing in the film to that point which indicates the level of Genco's intelligence. On the other hand, perhaps it does. Perhaps it was an intelligent decision by Genco, a grocer, not to take up arms against an alleged blackhander.

I think the movie depiction of Young Genco was nothing like Mario Puzo envisioned him. Instead, FFC simply used Genco as a device to show the audience that the community feared Fannucci.

Interesting thought, lets examine it. While ambushing Fanucci might not on the surface seem to be courageous, I would submit that, that was the only way to eliminate him. I am sure that others if they had the courage would have loved to eliminated Fanucci. Even though we know that Fanucci, acted alone, did Vito know? Isn't it possible that the reason others didn't make an attempt on Fannuccis life, is because they feared retribution from his family? Vito was in a state of warfare with Fanucci, not out of power or greed, but necessity. Fanucci screwed Vito twice out of money, and in effect was taking the food out of Vito's families mouth. He had enough, and did what he had to do. Did you want him to challenge Fanucci to a duel at twenty paces, or have a Matt Dillon shootout?

I think FFC and Puzo overdid Genco's cowardice in that scene, much as they overdid Fredo's stupidity in GF and II. But there was a point, ultimately, to both. In Genco's case, his fear of Fanucci (and the reluctance that Clemenza and Tessio showed in taking him on) underscored that Fanucci was really a wimp, and that his reputation as a "Black Hander" was just so much bluff. His character was historically accurate: in immigrant neighborhoods (not just Italian neighborhoods), individuals and small groups of toughs often invoked the name of feared organizations in the Old Country to terrorize the locals. But they had little real strength. Vito saw through the bluff. In Fredo's case, his weakness and stupidity led, in a complex way, to his betrayal of Michael, to the unforgettable outburst in the boathouse, and to his death at Michael's hand.

I kind of liked the way Frank Sivero portrayed Genco's reaction to the situation with Fanucci. He knew he was caught between a rock and hard place. While watching the play, he greatly praised how beautiful his girlfriend was, then being confronted with the situation with Fanucci, he didn't want to go after Fanucci, nor did he want to appear to be afraid in front of his friend Vito. On the other hand when Vito saw his livelihood threaten by Fanucci, he took matters into his own hands.

Speaking of Fredo's stupidity. I think we can agree that all of the family were well aware of Fredo's weakness in character and overall lack of intelligence. With this in mind, it always puzzled me, why they sent him to Las Vegas to learn the casino business. Since Mike said that they were thinking of getting out of the olive oil business and settling in Las Vegas, why would they use Fredo as the point man in the initial process of the move. I know it was obvious that much work was being done behind the scenes for the move, and that for all intents and purposes Fredo probably was sent out first, just to keep Moe Green occupied, until the real people got out there. But I still see it as being quite a step up for someone that was used to running mickey mouse nightclubs and picking up people at the airport.

There was no warfare between the two and I don't recall Vito running into the streets yelling "Ding Dong, the warlock's dead!"

He wasn't very old.

My good friend, there was most certaintly a state of warfare between Vito and Fannucci, as the basis of all war is greed, and Fannucci was being greedy and hurting Vito. While there wasn't a scene of Vito running into the streets, there was a deleted scene of Vito dancing on the rooftops after he shot Fannucci singing "I like to be in America", which FFC copied from West Side Story

Because of the same reason De Niro wasn't used as old Vito in Part I.

Part II came after Part I.

Funny you mention that, Frank Sivero can be seen (as an extra) in the background when Sonny is beating up Carlo.

Sivero is the only person to appear in part I and II as a different character.

Uh, no.

Sofia Coppola was in ALL 3. Each time as a different character.

And playing different sexes!

Damn, my bad Pizzaboy. Nevertheless, Sivero is in the background while Carlo is getting destroyed. Check it out JackKing

For a grocer to be afraid of someone he believes to be a ruthless gangster connected to even more ruthless gangsters doesn't strike me as cowardice, just common sense. By the time Vito did Fancucci in, he'd already moved from being a grocer to being in the same occupation as Fanucci.

I think you make too big a deal about Genco's cowardice in Part II when Fanucci has his girlfriend with a knife to her throat. Genco clearly wasn't the muscle type. He had the brains.

Carmine Caridi appeared in II and III as two different characters.