How would Vito have acted in the Vegas situation - a brother with limited abilities and a lot of weaknesses? Would he have given something important? A hotel on his own? Just to give him a playground, so that he could feel important. Or would he keep him close to make sure, he doesn't do foolish things? But keeping Fredo close didn't prevent him to act against Michael.

I think that Vito was much more perceptive than Michael, as well as honestly interested in, the ups and downs of people's daily existence. Michael couldn't care less if you were having problems with a landlord, or needed a small loan or wanted to stop by for coffee and chat.

So Vito would have picked up on a brother's disenchantment much earlier and have arranged for that brother to be kept very close and have given that brother seemingly what he wanted without giving him any real power or authority.

In Fredo's case his resentment came from the fact that he was older. He wouldn't have had the same problem with Sonny. And maybe not even with Tom.

A Vito in the same position would have publicly declared his brother his counselor and let everyone know he didn't make a move without listening to his brother. He would have made sure his brother was listened to and extremely well paid..even if Vito had other "real" counselors or only really allowed his brother to make decisions or give advice on things that either didn't interest Vito or were of no importance. Vito would have kept in contact with his brother and never acted "high handed" or allowed others to give the impression that he was "high-handed".

Michael lacks that personal touch, which is why, among other reasons, his relationships with Kay, Tom, Connie, and Fredo became so tense.

That said, once Fredo's plotting or mistake , led to the almost deaths of Michael and Kay, I'm not sure that any mob boss could have forgiven that.

I agree. Vito seemed to care more than mike did about people around him but he never let himself appear weak. I doubt anybody in his immediate family would have tried anything. but i think even in fredo's case Vito tried to at least encourage him a little. Vito would have been smart enough to know that fredo would never hurt his family. Mike either wasn't smart enough or he just became a total psycho that he couldn't make sense of anything

I agree with Lilo. The novel makes clear that Vito knew Sonny and Fredo wouldn't be equal to him as future Dons. But he apprenticed Sonny to Clemenza and kept him in the loop for all important discussions, believing (logically, I think) that some of his wisdom and experience would rub off on Sonny. He also kept Fredo close to him; and while the jobs Fredo did weren't high-powered, his proximity to Vito probably enhanced his self-esteem.

Vito was far better at handling people in the sense he got people to like him, but if said weaker brother stepped out of bounds, putting him in harms way, I don't think he would have ever considered fratricide. I tend to think he would have marginalized him without committing murder.

In film I don't recall Vito blaming Fredo for fumbling his pistol and failing to protect during attempt on his life. He knew Fredo's limitations and cut him slack, though we have to question the wisdom of using Fredo as a bodyguard.

i think some look into "fredo fumbling the gun" a little too much. Look im sure for a whacking out of a large figure like vito corleone would require two expert killers so even if fredo didnt fumble the gun vito would have still been shot and fredo would have died even if he was lucky to hit one of the shooters

Well only FFC knows for sure at this point. It would be nice if he spoke on it some day.
But there's a big difference between plotting and a mistake. The film remains ambiguous enough so that there are good arguments on either side. For even the most egregious mistakes I can't see Vito ever lifting a hand to kill his own blood. That's unthinkable for that character. I would bet that when he's shot he's calling out Fredo's name as much to warn him as a cry for help.

But as has been argued elsewhere and will be debated forever, we don't know how much Fredo knew or what he did in regards to the Roth situation. Certainly the boathouse scene reveals a man that still has a tremendous amount of anger at his brother and is evidently not smart enough to realize that his life hangs in the balance by the words he says. Both Vito and (to a lesser extent) Michael will accept mistakes and even incompetence. But disloyalty is a different thing.

Fredo says "you guys lied to me" and tells Michael "I didn't know it was gonna be a hit". Well what did he think it was gonna be? Did Ola/Roth really lie to him or did he lie to himself? Ola says "We need some more help". Well what "help" did Fredo give them before? Who killed those men outside Fredo's home? Did they go there to report to Fredo or have Fredo hide them/help them get off the property?

We don't know.

All we know is that Vito never would have had to deal with this sort of thing-partly via luck but mostly because he didn't inspire resentment and jealously within his blood family. And if he did Fredo still had enough respect for his father not to raise those issues.

But the novel tells us, that Vito had Fredo on his shitlist. Not so much because of his failure as being a body guard, but because of his behavior in Las Vegas.



The problem was, Fredo couldn't be trusted, because he was dumb and he was vein. It wasn't about the money. I'm sure he had all the money and all the luxury he could ask for. But he wanted respect and power. The problem: you can't give a man like Fredo too much power, he's a danger for himself and for the people around him.

And for Vito's abilities to kill "his own blood": He never had to face dilemmas like Michael. He had no living brothers or parents. His wife was obedient. No relative ever betrayed him.

well killing your own relatives is probably the most evil thing you can do so in storyline terms it fits mikes character since he was a total psychopath in Part 2. I've said that there was no need to kill fredo since for one even mike knew that fredo didnt want anything bad to happen to him and secondly mike killed all his enemies and i doubt anybody would want to mess with mike since he wiped out all of the families in new york. Roth was the one exception since he was probably the most cunning gangster out there

As D states, Fredo was dumb and wein. So, the remedy was to exclude Fredo from family business which Michael finally did. But fratricide is quite a leap for anyone to make and was unnecessary. Vito couldn't even bring himself to stop Carlo from abusing his daughter; he couldn't bring himself to murder Carlo because of Sonny's death. He definitely could never engage in filicide.

Especially when considering that family meant EVERYTHING to Vito, since he had his father, mother and brother all stolen from him.

Yes, and that's a very important point:

Vito's outlook on life was fundamentally different than Michael's. Vito was a product of rural Sicily, where people distrusted government and big institutions, and vested all loyalty and trust in immediate family, then extended family, then townsmen. Vito's idea of legitimacy was to provide for, and protect, his family and, by extension, people who sought his favors. At Connie's wedding, he was like a gabellotto in Sicily--dispensing justice. He bribed judges and politicians, but he also tried to establish personal ties of loyalty. The money and power he accumulated were not ends unto themselves, they enabled him and his family to be secure, and to stand with the pezzanovanti, not to be manipulated by the pezzanovanti. He didn't care how the rest of society viewed him, as long as he could work in the background. He was perfectly content to pose as a moderately successful immigrant who made good in the olive oil importing business.

Michael grew up in a secure, financially well-off, environment. His ambitions were much bigger, and much more impersonal. His idea of legitimacy was to be accepted and respected by any and all business and political pezzanovanti.And, he wanted public recognition, as in the cast of thousands who attended Anthony's party, and being photographed with Sen. Geary making an endowment to the state university. To him, family was something to use in his quest for "legitimacy"--Kay to prop up his image as a "legitimate" businessman with an all-American wife; Anthony as his successor. There was no room for extendingn kindnesses to Fredo and Connie, unless he could use them. Did he have feelings for Fredo and Connie? Sure, but they were limited. He'd let Fredo run Mickey Mouse nightclubs, but he wouldn't extend himself personally by trying to mentor him or otherwise show personal interest. Connie was someone who was to be distained because she let men treat her like a whore. He let her back into the family only when she begged on her knees--and only when accepting her plea to forgive Fredo became a tool in his plan to whack Fredo.

Fredo was not only weak and dumb but was full of pride and very vain! Michael made the big mistake of including him in the family business, he wasn't cut out for it! Michael was wrong in committing fratricide, it was his fault for trusting Fredo and giving him too much responsibility!`

Mamma Corleone's feelings were similar to Michael's. And we can assume that she felt preety much like Vito. She was really pissed when Connie arrived at the party, and was much less polite to her and her new lover. And Fredo - well, if she had known what he did. Definetely she was terribly embarrassed by his wife's behavior.

Vito had Fredo pegged as weak and stupid from the get go. That is why he made him a kind of "personal assistant," to keep him close. Note, for instance that Vito allowed Fredo to attend the Sollozzo meeting, and Fredo knowing his place kept his mouth shut (unlike Sonny). When Sonny mde his "mistake" and ran his mouth Vito chewed him out AND got in a dig about his going soft in the head from all that comedy he was playing with that young girl. This was a perfect demonstration that
Vito understood how to use knowledge as power. He also managed to keep a good balancing act between Sonny and Tom to keep their relationship a good one.
Michael on the other hand didn't care about anyone or anything except himself.

As many have said, it's hard to imagine that Vito would have allowed a brother's resentment to get to the point Fredo's did.

While he softened as he aged, it's not out of the realm of possibility that, while younger, had he truly believed that his brother was endangering the Family's/family's safety, he would have used whatever means necessary to stop the threat.

Two major differences between Vito and Michael:

1. While others disagree, I do not believe that Michael really believed Fredo was an ongoing threat. He killed Fredo out of vengeance and because, as he told Lamberto in GFIII, "he injured me." Vito never would have done this.

2. Had things gotten to that point, Vito would have believed it was his own failures as a Don and brother that led to the situation and would have redoubled his efforts to make sure his relationships with his wife and other family members were strong. Michael was incapable of such reflections, at least at that point in his life.

To continue from Turnbull's point somewhat, we must remember too: Vito was feared AND loved. People like Johnny Fontane did Vito favors out of genuine affection for the man--Out of a genuine sense of love and loyalty. Whereas people only feared Michael; They never loved him. Look at the way Johnny Fontane acts towards Michael's request that he perform at the Casinos: He's reluctant at first, but agrees because he'd "do anything for his Godfather." Michael was never a "Godfather"--Merely a Don. Michael couldn't care less if someone in then neighborhood needed a favor; These were meaningless to him. He was greatly feared, but was never as respected and loved as Vito was--either by his underlings, or by the other Families, or even by his own family.

He expanded an Empire founded on community, loyalty, respect and love, and made it an Empire which maintained power through force, or fear of force.

Michael probably would never have made it as far in the Underworld if not for the foundation Vito built. Michael, being EXTREMELY good in business, expanded on what was already made.

But if you put Michael in Vito's shoes, he couldn't start a Family and become the beloved and respected man his father was by 1945. He could make a feared Capo or Enforcer, but I truly don't believe Michael could've stepped out into the illegitimate world on his own and have built a family like his father did.

Also, I believe that Michael let his emotions and sense of hurt and anger guide his actions in killing Fredo and Roth. He had forgotten: What Roth did wasn't personal; It was business. Michael had made business personal. As said above, he admitted he killed Fredo because he "injured him". Michael thus "betrayed himself" by letting his emotions rule him. He wasn't an obvious hothead like Sonny, but had instead a cold, burning rage. But both had the same flaw: They took business personally, and went too far in their vengeance.

I've always thought that each son's personality represented a facet of Vito, and I think a flaw of ALL his sons--Michael included-shared was that none of them could truly control their emotions or separate their personal feelings from business. Vito, probably because of his upbringing, learned to separate the two very distinctly.

Ironically, the "son" who probably came closest to Vito, at least in terms of being in control of himself and not letting emotions guide his judgement, was Tom.

I think you guys should be careful in mythologizing Vito so much- Was a more moral Don than Michael? Without question, but he was still ruthless as well as a sociopath just like any man in his profession. I think what makes The Godfather so universally appealing is that(taking all the bloodshed aside) Vito is pretty much setup as the ideal father and leader- that's his IMAGE to the viewer and to his children, and it is a common theme in life for the child to "live up" to the father morally or even surpass him economically, but we don't really know the experiences the father went through until he became that ideal figure to his family and community, yeah we get to see glimpses of him in GF2, but he is still a somewhat romanticized figure because he is the underdog and he is pushed into a position where he must feed his family by any means necessary.

Both films really are about Michael and are more of a personal character study of one man's soul and what is to my opinion one of the greatest character studies ever committed to film, We don't get that close to Vito- he still is very much an enigmatic figure and presence within the family, we never see him make mistakes so who knows how he would have handled Freddy? Would he have gone so far as to have him whacked? Probably Not, but maybe he ignored and discouraged him as a child and doted on Michael too much and that was the festering problem? Jealousy is a dangerous emotion, was Freddy stupid enough to think an attempt won't be made on Michael's life or did he see it as an opportunity, even on a subconscious level to head the family and finally get the respect that eluded him all his life?

It's like the movie Rashomon, imagine if the story of GF1 & 2, was told mainly from Don Vito and Fredo's perspective with Michael, Sonny and the rest of the clan as mere side characters- would you feel as appalled with Michael taking him out? would you have more sympathy for the character?

Just food for thought ladies and gents.

I agree with you about Vito. i never let him off the hook since he ordered murders and controlled rackets that he didn't have the right to control. However when comparing him to mike there is no contest that vito was morally better than mike. Mike was a psychopath from the end of Part 1 to part 2. I mean he murders family,women,and who knows what else. Fredo is no saint he has many flaws but its evident taht he is not a vicious individual and didnt deserve to die especially at the hands of your own brother