Hi plawrence. I think I better clarify myself. Yes, the juxtaposition of the flashbacks with the contemporary scenes was certainly intentional; no doubt about that. I believe that FFC intended to show several motifs with this technique, among them --

(1) The contrast of Vito's ascent with Michael's descent.

(2) The familial bond that made Michael consider it a duty to continue his father's business. But did Michael consider what he himself wanted, his own ideals? He lost sight of the fact that he at first wanted nothing to do with the crime business.

(3) The changing influence and pervasiveness of organized crime from Vito's generation to Michael's generation

What I meant to say previously, though, is that an unintentional result of the flashback / contemporary juxtaposition is that some viewers will think of it as a straight contrast between Vito and Michael, and they will believe that FFC's message is "Vito: good and moral crime lord; Michael: bad and immoral crime lord." This, in turn, implies that there is a good and moral way to run a criminal empire, which, of course, there isn't.

I don't think it was FFC's intent for viewers to come away with that simplistic a conclusion.

Unfortunately, the scenes and situations FFC inserted for the early Vito story practically canonize him as a hero. This makes it very easy for a viewer to lose sight of the subtleties he probably intended to convey and to instead jump to the unintentional, simplistic conclusion that "Vito was indeed a good and compassionate mafia kingpin. Michael should have been more like him."