This thread is inspired by a post from svsg in another thread...

I've often thought that myself.

The story is really Michael's story, about how he became the Godfather.

If you look at it objectively, and I know this will sound a bit silly to some, Vito was much more of a peripheral character in the film than Michael was.

I think it's only because Brando was the big star and Pacino was the unknown that we think of Vito as "The" Godfather.

Had the roles been reversed - had Pacino been a major star at the time and the Vito Corleone role been given to an unknown, or at least a lesser-known actor - I think we would view the question of who was really playing the title role a bit differently.

thats a good point- until i read this i would have thought the film was based on vito. and it goes on from there. i think the gf3 was going to be called the death of michael corleone

Couldn't agree more. It goes for all three parts.

Lets deal with Part I, the flashback scenes of Part II and the novel (as it was originally intended to be viewed and read) - Vito is the title character. Mike became godfather only after Vito died (and in the novel and Part I, that was a "small" part).

If you go with the "newer" scenes from Part II and then Part III the answer would have to be Michael.

Why can't it just be both (or all 4 but that is pushing it). I always thought of it not as THE PERSON but THE POSITION of the role. The story is not about Michael or Vito as Godfather but just the Godfather of the corleone family and how the 3/4 different people used the position.


Yes I'm probably wrong but that was my feeling

Interesting.
Michael is the main character. He is the one who evolves (Chirs Moltisanti's "Arch-speach" comes to mind).
BUT, Vito is the one who is referred to as The Godfather. The one who actually holds the title of Godfather (Moe Green referring to him as The Godfather).
Micheal is referred to as Godfather sometimes (by Lucchesi in part II for example), but never as The Godfather, at least not to my recollection.

For me the only Godfather in the movies is Vito. Michael whole "career" he tried to be like his father. He tried to protect his family, like his father had done.

Insomma : Michael tried to be as The real Godfather was.

Well that's just my opinion.

EDIT: DonMichaelCorleone: That was actually a great point! That it's the title rather than a person. Very interesting.

The original title of Puzo's novel was "Mafia." He changed it to "The Godfather." Brilliant move! "Mafia" simply describes a criminal organization. "Godfather" implies a certain kind of chivalrous (but ultimately self-serving) behavior by an old-time Mafia Don that was superbly demonstrated by Vito in the novel and film.
But the thrust of the novel, and the overwhelming focus of the Trilogy, is on Michael's metamorphosis from idealistic lad to cynical global crime emperor. There's almost nothing of the old-time "Godfather" in him, and we almost never see it (except perhaps in a deleted scene with Sonny's daughter Francesca and her suitor). In fact, even when Michael's being generous to Sicily (in III), he does it through a foundation: just the kind of impersonal medium any WASP big businessman would use (but notice how Altobello, the old-fashioned Godfather-type who was Connie's godfather, writes a personal check to the foundation in Michael and Connie's presence).
IMO, the most revealing indicator of Michael's rejection of "godfatherly" behavior is when he's in New Hampshire, wooing Kay. "My father's way of doing things is finished," he says. We think he's telling Kay that he's going to go "legit." But I think he meant, "My father's way of running a criminal empire is finished. I'm gonna turn this 'family' into the General Motors of organized crime."

I've always believed that the title of the book/films referred to Michael, as it's his character and humanity, or lack thereof, that we are following. I first saw the film in the early '80s when it premiered on British TV and ever since then have always thought of him as The Godfather.

Even though Bonasera addresses Vito, albeit instructed to, as Godfather in the film and book's opening scenes, Michael is never referred as such in the film yet I never think of Vito as The Godfather.

Just my £0.02 worth.

Loved it, but I would turn this 'family' into Microsoft of organized crime. Forget the crashes and freezing ups!

Great answer, Turnbull. Quick question for you... Based on your response, do you think Michael had any intention of going legit?

Side note - I think DMC may have stumbled onto something here. At first thought, he may be correct - the Godfather isn't really about one person, but about the Position itself. This requires some further thought on our parts however. My main hesitation in subscribing to this theory is that in each movie, there was a superficial transfer of the title "Godfather". Sonny in Part I, Tom in Part II and finally Vincent in Part III - all three, in one way or another, held the title of Godfather - but we, as viewers, never really saw them as such. The reason for this is because someone was ultimately above them, holding their strings (Vito or Michael).

This of course is no news to any of us (hence the reason for this topic in the first place). However, the superficial transfers do prove, in my opinion, that the characters of Vito and Michael are more central to the story than the actual position of Godfather.

Ultimately, I agree with Plaw - the story of the Godfather is Michael's. We see him develop all the way through - and every other character, including Vito, adds or affects his development. One can't say the same about Michael to Vito. In this way, Vito is more of a stock character.

so do you think the godfather symbol could mean a person pulling the strings on the Godfather and not the Godfather pulling the strings on the others?

Congratulations, Plaw, you've brought me out of the General Discussion forum for the first time in months!

Actually, I always thought that "The Godfather" was a reference only to the actual role of Godfather, not specific about who actually took up that role. So in The Godfather and its two sequels, the film followed whoever happened to be "The Godfather." So (this may be unnecessarily repeating myself...) the title was not referring to Vito or Michael, but the actual position as head of the Corleone Family.

Mick

that is what I was trying to say in my first post lol Mine just sounded like (the movie) Luca Brasi saying it lol

... lol.

Whether it was Vito or Michael, they were the ones pulling the strings. The example I brought up - Tom, Vincent, Sonny - didn't have the strings to begin with.

I think the title refers to both Vito and Michael.

Sure he intended to go "legit"--as long as he could define "legitimacy." The key is found in that same scene with Kay:
She says, "Senators and Governors don't have people killed." Michael replies: "Who's being naive?...My father is no different than other powerful men who have responsibilities for other people...in five years, the Corleone family will be completely legitimate." I take that to mean, "Poweful people--politicians, big businessmen, not just Mafia Dons--make their own rules. If Senators and Governors can use murder and coercion and get away with it, and call themselves legit, then I'm legit, too."
Michael really believes this crap, but Kay doesn't. So Michael dissembles. In II, at Anthony's party, she reminds him that seven years have passed since he said the family'd be completely legit in five years. All he can do is murmer, "I'm trying..." BS! Later, when Kay says she's taking the kids to New Hampshire, Michael says, "I know I can change..." BS again. By Part III, Kay confronts him at his "legitimization" party and calls him "a common Mafia hood." Ouch--that hurt him right to the core. "I spent my life protecting my family from the horrors of this world," he shouts back at her--another BS rationalization. "But you became my horror," she retorts, quietly. Touche, Kay!

Total agreement. Despite the initial necessary foundation that Vito provides for the saga to continue in part I, the trilogy basically chronicles Michael's "descent" into the life he never thought he'd be living. He is "the Godfather", but he never adapts the "Godfather"-like methods of his dad.

Remember, in Catholic tradition, a godfather is supposed to aid the parents in forming the values and proper upbringing that his godchild should have. Michael kills his godchild's dad. That, alone, is antithetical to the "traditional" concept of godfather that Vito upheld.

It's why, I think, the last scene in II involves Michael burying his head in shame, and why the last scene in III is the abandoned boathouse in Vegas. It's a reminder of the monster that Michael had become;a noble, dignified, rational, and, ultimately, tragic monster.