The Godfather Trilogy (1972, 1974 & 1990) and the politics of Machiavelli as described in The Prince, part 1

 

 Introduction

The Godfather trilogy is the best series of films that deal with the concept of dynasty which includes several themes: the succession of power; how power is shared; the consolidation of power; and the isolation that comes with achieving absolute power. These films have been critically acclaimed however part 3 was not as acclaimed as the first two. When people discuss the greatness behind The Godfather films they usually focus on parts one and two. I have however found a current running through all three films and that is the politics of Machiavelli as described in his treatise The Prince. When one looks at the trilogy this is the connection that brings part 3 into the fold. In this review I will not seek to assess each film individually but as a whole which is why it is divided into two parts. The Godfather trilogy is essentially a fictional account or (if you like) an impressionistic piece loosely based on actual occurrences in the crime underworld. This film however plays on the mythology that is the ‘Mafia’ or ‘Cosa nostra’ a large network of gangs/families that are comprised, primarily, of Italian Americans. The Godfather films centre on the Corleone family and their struggle to become legitimate Americans. The story begins with Vito Corleone (Patriarch ) who arrives in New York (1901) on a ship full of immigrants with diverse backgrounds to escape the threat of death that looms over his head in Sicily. Don Ciccio in Sicily refuses to accept the mother’s pleas for clemency because after killing Vito’s father, who insulted him, and the brother, who threatened vengeance for his father’s death, the Don naturally assumes that when Vito (Andolini) grows older he will seek vengeance on him as well (he eventually does). When Vito arrives in New York under this cloud he grows in a community made up, predominantly, of Italian immigrants like himself from other parts of Italy not only from Sicily. Vito’s upbringing is nothing remarkable apart from the fact that he marries early and this theme is important for The Godfather films because the family was the only security for immigrants entering America in the early decades of the twentieth century.  He works in low paying jobs until he meets Peter Clemenza, after being fired from a job where he had to step aside for Fanucci’s nephew, who introduces him to a life of crime. When crime starts to pay Vito encounters the don of his area: Don Fanucci who demands tribute. Vito eventually kills Don Fanucci and takes his place and he grows in stature among the class of Italian American immigrants because he is designated as their protector through several favours he grants to make sure that Italian Americans can enjoy their life in America. The opening scene of ‘The Godfather’ (1972) part one highlights the stature of Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando in part one and Robert De Niro as young Vito in part 2) among Italian Americans whose alias is The Godfather. In the opening film he is getting old and as Sollozo, the Turk, says to Tom Hagen after believing he has orchestrated the death of Vito:  ‘The don, rest in peace, was slipping’. After the attempt on his life and the vacuum created by his inability to command the family the question of how the family is to carry on without Vito becomes the source of a lot of conflict, not only internally but externally as the other families scent blood with Vito out of the picture. Sonny assumes the leadership role but his hot head costs him his life and Michael, Vito’s youngest son, eventually assumes the leadership role. ‘The Godfather part two’ (1974) shows how Michael consolidates power by eliminating his opponents particularly those who used to work with his father like Hyman Roth. This takes a toll on his personal life as he becomes estranged from his family particularly his wife Kay (Diane Keaton). Michael justifies his nefarious actions by saying that he is providing for his family however as he is the youngest the older siblings Connie and Fredo do not wish to accept that the youngest is the head of the family. This is where Michael kills Fredo, who was duped by Hyman Roth and his ‘Sicilian messenger boy’ Johnny Ola, so that they could make an attempt on Michael’s life. The film closes with a reflective Michael who seems to realise that he never escaped his father’s shadow or that he really was a man like his father. In part one he emphasized to Kay that he was not a part of the life his family led:  the illegitimate life.  He however found himself leading an illegitimate life so as to consolidate power and money through the casino business. Initially the Corleone family was involved in importing Olive Oil from Sicily through the Genco Olive Oil Company. In ‘The Godfather part 3’ (1990) Don Luchessi says to Vincent Mancini ‘Finance is the Gun; politics is knowing when to push to the trigger’. This is where money and power are separate. Part 3 sees an aging Michael in 1979 trying to find legitimate outlets where he can invest his money. There are two sources for this: the company Immobiliare and the Vatican bank of Rome. This is the subject of various intrigues which I will discuss later on. Michael is still forced to confront the underworld especially as they will not allow him to pull out simply because they wish to take his money and then have him killed. The politics involving the church in this film is an important point raised by Machiavelli in his work The Prince as a means to consolidate power. Vincent, Sonny’s illegitimate son, eventually succeeds Michael. Michael, however, dies in obscurity as is evidenced by the final shot in this film. He goes out in obscurity because he has achieved absolute power and the consequence of achieving this is solitude. This solitude is not a voluntary expression of your need to be alone it is a natural consequence when you acquire so much power. In order to acquire absolute power you will have to put down others who are naturally aspiring for the same thing and those you are close to because as Michael tells Vincent ‘when they come for you they come for what you love’ .

Impressionism in The Godfather trilogy and comparisons with The Prince

When I say impressionism I am speaking of the subjective point of view of individuals in the film   as well as the collation of the various aspects of the actual mafia, on which the films are based, in the form of a fictional account. This form of subjective impressionism is in contrast to the objective reality which, ironically, represents an accumulation of subjective experiences which have been tried and tested.

 After reading The Prince by Machiavelli it became evident to me that the type of politics he is espousing is similar in some respects to the actions of the Dons in the Godfather trilogy. It is tricky to compare the two because both are impressionistic and so in the Godfather films it does seem that the easiest way to get rid of your enemy is to kill him.  Impressionism in these films manifests it self in various ways. For instance you are not exactly sure from a physical perspective of the rackets they are involved in such as the investment companies, casinos, hotels, whorehouses, Genco olive oil etc for you never really see these in operation. You hear of them but it comes across as though Francis Coppola and Mario Puzo, the screenwriters, are not interested in how these institutions actually function but in the procedure of how they are acquired. This does not detract from the film but characters such as Joey Zsasa, a mere enforcer in part 3, does not seem as effective because of this although he is instrumental in the day to day running of the Mafia underworld. It would also explain why he would feel that he is capable of taking down the heads of the other families. It is also impressionistic because the godfather films are a composite of factual accounts involving various gangsters or families; for instance the fictional Moe Greene, in part one, is modelled off  Bugsy Siegel the historical personage of the 1930’s and 40’s who set up casinos in Nevada. When the Corleone family comes to buy out Moe Greene he refuses and is then shot through the eye and in this sense it seems impressionistic because they simply wanted to get him out of the way. It did not involve sophisticated business procedures apart from Michael saying to Moe Greene ‘the Corleone family wants to buy you out’ because he is evidently losing money because it is well known that the corleone family bankrolled his casino'.  I am here saying that it seems like more of an abstract and this is why it is impressionistic. It does have elements that highlight the transfer of property but all these controlling interests are never visible.  It is effective but is it an actual reflection of how business is conducted. This is why films such as ‘GoodFellas’(1990) and ‘Casino’ (1995), both directed by Martin Scorsese, seem more effective as a realistic portrayal of the mafia than do the films that comprise ‘The Godfather trilogy’ and fills the gaps created by these films. This is a criticism of the Godfather films only in so far as other films such as ‘Goodfellas’ actually highlight the real machinations of the so called mafia.

 In the Godfather films there are several statements that suggest that there is some time spent on highlighting the structure of the family and their syndicates. In part one after it is agreed that drugs will be marketed Tom Hagen Robert Duvall says to Vito ‘should I insist that these drug middlemen have clean records.’ When an enquiry (orchestrated by Hyman Roth) by the senate on Michael Corleone’s family in part 2 is underway the committee ask Cicci if there was a buffer between himself and Michael Corleone. Cicci responds ‘yeah the family had a lot of buffers’. The Corleone family headed by Michael and Vito had capo regimes and soldiers. In the trilogy capo regimes are headed by the likes of Tessio, Clemenza, AL, Rocco, Fredo etc. The screen writers therefore acknowledge the structure but it still seems vague because most of the dealings take place at the top. You are made aware of these other elements in part one following the near successful assassination of Vito and the scramble for power that ensued after. In part 2 and 3 these elements hardly figure in proceedings unless it is to kill someone.  This focus at the top is attributable to the scale of the godfather films in contrast with films such as ‘GoodFellas’ who deal with the actual functioning.  The scale of the Godfather films is evident in parts 2 and 3. In part 2 there is not only the casino business and the various gaming licenses that have to be acquired but Michael, through Hyman Roth, is asked to partake in a venture (probably in the hotel industry) in Cuba under the corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista only months before Fidel Castro was to seize power. Hyman Roth says to Michael that not even his father could have dreamed of a venture such as this ‘partnership with a real government’. In the US the partnership is thwarted by security groups such as the FBI. In part 3 there are deals with the church where Michael makes a magnificent donation to the church of $100 million to be invested with some order of the church (which Kay rightfully sees as a shameful ceremony) and he also seeks to become legitimate by depositing $600 million with the Vatican bank to absolve its debts and become a partner in the Immobiliare group. This scale however is convenient only to highlight the extent of Michael Corleone’s power or give the impression that he has conveniently amassed all this power which will allow for a proper understanding of Michael’s isolation.

 Films such as the Godfather are also impressionistic because most fiction has an impressionistic aspect so as to create dramatic tension. Therefore some characters in a historical piece will not reflect the actual character as he lived and breathed but the character should at least represent the essence of that historical character. This is where criticism of films based on actual historical events comes from. The godfather films succeed to evade most of these criticisms because it is able to capture the essence of the subject which is the most important thing for a fictional piece.

The Prince by Machiavelli is likewise impressionistic in parts although he does rely on actual historical events to prove his points.  I was never quite sure whether or not I agreed with him and so his writings came across as impressionistic especially as there does not seem to be a current that runs through the piece which would show why all the instances, as presented in the book, are essential to each other. Machiavelli does state on several occasions that this may not be so in another instance where.... but he never goes on to explain that other instance. This is opposed to Das Kapital by Karl Marx where it is made clear throughout his work that his primary focus is on the capitalist system so that all ramifications that he discusses are related only to that economic system. Marx himself was going into the realm of impressionistic writing when he tried to demonstrate why capitalism would collapse. He would not have many instances in history where he could say definitively that a transition from capitalism to socialism would occur at this precise moment. When you are impressionistic it simply means that you have leapt into the realm of faith or subjective reasoning. Machiavelli on the other hand is dealing with the abstract that is power and there are too many webs to uncover to say that his work is definitive. He does include brief historical analysis, particularly when he discusses principalities, but not as extensive as he could have and this is why his work comes across as impressionistic at times. Machiavelli says in the section ‘New principalities acquired by one’s own arms and prowess’:  

‘Men nearly(!) always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation, even though they cannot entirely keep to the tracks of others or emulate the prowess of their models. So a prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding. If his own prowess fails to compare with theirs, at least it has an air of greatness about it.’

When I say impressionistic I am not saying that there is no merit to the statements made but what if you try and apply one of his concepts and fail would he have been right or is it only in another instance. This is why in part 3 of the god father Michael says, ‘I command this family; right or wrong’. That is a realistic statement; the politics however is impressionistic or subjective which is why I come back to the statement made by Don Luchessi: finance is the gun; politics (good politics) is knowing when to pull the trigger’. How do you know when to pull the trigger? What references in history can you use to say that this is the time to do it? This is why it becomes impressionistic for you will never know whether it is right or wrong at that moment.  Throughout the Godfather trilogy the simplest method is to kill your enemy however in Michael’s case, his order to have his brother killed does seem justified in that Fredo betrayed him but it is not justified because Michael is haunted by this event. He reveals this when he speaks to the Cardinal (Pope John Paul 1) about his sins.

The statement by Machiavelli quoted above about men, more times than not, imitating other men  when they aspire for something reflects the burden Michael faces throughout the trilogy of trying to emulate the tried and proven methods of his father who attained magnificent success from nothing. This burden is the shadow cast by Michael’s father,  Vito Corleone, for it also represents his objective reality although he now has to use his own subjective means to be his own man. There are several key scenes where Michael justifies his actions by saying that this was how his father would do it with the most telling one being when he asks his mother about what ‘papa felt deep in his heart....by being strong for his family could he lose it.’ His mother responds by saying (after first misinterpreting the statement) that ‘son you can never lose your family. Michael says ‘times are changing’. This is why most of Michael’s enemies in parts two and three were affiliated his father; enemies such as Hyman Roth in part 2 and Don Altobello in part 3. They will never see Michael as how they saw Vito Corleone. Part 2 of the Godfather highlights that when Vito began his trade he started from nothing whereas Michael basically inherited the fruits of his labour. Other instances that highlight this are statements by Moe Greene to Michael in part one: ‘I was making bones when you were going out with cheer leaders ‘or when Hyman Roth, in part two, tells Michael of the story of Moe Greene who built a casino from nothing in the desert of Nevada however he is shown no recognition for  his efforts in helping to build the fortunes of America. Michael did however do things that Vito did not achieve and this was in the area of the casino business. We see this towards the end of part 1 and in the whole of part 2 where Michael must fight to hold firm his position in the casino business. This is where Michael demonstrates his prowess as a Don. Machiavelli continues:

‘ I say , therefore that in completely new states, where the prince himself is a newcomer, the difficulty he encounters in maintaining his rule is more or less serious insofar as he is more or less able. And since the very fact that from being a private citizen he has become a prince presupposes either ability or good fortune, it would seem that one or the other of these should to some extent lessen many of the difficulties encountered.'

The trilogy stresses in part 1 that Michael is a civilian (private citizen) which is why the mafia would not target him after the incursion made by Sollozo who was trying to introduce heroin or crack into the streets. Michael eventually assumes the responsibility of taking over his father’s family after the moment in the hospital in part 1 after he sees Don Corleone, near death on his bed, in a tenuous situation where his enemies are threatening to return to finish the job. It is in the hospital where he decides to become a part of the family. Michael’s ability stems from the fact that he had to expand the family business through the casino business and he more or less succeeded for by part 3 the Corleones must be worth at least 1 billion dollars and more (In 1979 that is a lot of money). His fortune, if one were to follow Machiavelli’s statement, stems from the fact that he inherited his father’s family. This is the only reason why Michael seeks to emulate his father however it is made clear that he himself was his own man which is why it is needlessly repetitive to hear the old timers saying what Vito would have done differently. This becomes quite apparent in part 3. This refers back to my point of impressionism throughout the trilogy and in Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s statement that the actions of the prince acquiring his own state ‘presupposes either ability or good fortune’ is very impressionistic when compared with the Godfather films. This either or dichotomy that is never quite resolved in the statements of Machiavelli suggests that, being a impressionistic form of writing, it is not conclusive much like life itself is and relates, more or less, to the subjective experience or a subjective interpretation of an event. This impressionistic device would suggest that Michael would forever be at odds with his destiny. The desire of Michael Corleone to move out of the illegitimate sphere inherited by his father and his desire to move into the legitimate sphere highlights this dichotomy: ‘Just when I thought I was out they keep pulling me back in’. This contrasts with the attitude of Vincent Mancini (Corleone) who does not mind entering the illegitimate field. His mind is not as clouded by reason as is the mind of Michael for Vincent knows that this is the way of the mafia. In part 3 Michael speaks to Don tomassino who is lying dead in his coffin and says, ‘Why were you so loved and I so feared?’He might as well have addressed the same question to his father for tomassino was one of Vito’s allies. Machiavelli also addresses the same issue in his section: ‘Cruelty and Compassion; and whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse.’ In this section he states in his impressionistic style:

‘I say that a prince must want to have a reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty: none the less, he must be careful that he does not make bad use of compassion. Cesare Borgia was accounted cruel; nevertheless, this cruelty of his reformed the Romagna, brought it unity, and restored order and obedience.’

 Machiavelli says you must avoid being hated and his impressionistic style does suggest that by being cruel it is possible that you will be hated by some. He however makes an important point that points to Michael’s dilemma when he says, ‘A new prince, of all rulers, finds it impossible to avoid a reputation for cruelty, because of the abundant dangers inherent in a newly won state.’ This is the answer to Michael’s question to an extent however his actions do seem questionable because as Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) says ‘Roth and the Rosato brothers are on the run. You’ve won. Do you want to wipe everybody out?’ Michael responds ‘I don’t feel I have to wipe everybody out. Just my enemies’ His list of enemies included his brother Fredo and Michael’s soul will never recover because he has lost the love of his wife Kay and is hated by her. Machiavelli says you must avoid being hated and:

 ‘None the less, a prince must be slow to believe allegations and to take action, and must watch that he does not come to be afraid of his own shadow; his behaviour must be tempered by humanity and prudence so that overconfidence does not make him rash or excessive distrust make him unbearable.’

This is also based on subjective reasoning for going back to the statement of Don Luchessi in part 3: ‘politics is knowing when to pull the trigger’. The question is how do you know when to pull the trigger to put your mind at rest knowing that you have gotten rid of your enemy? You cannot avoid being cruel at times but by being cruel how do you avoid being hated. Machiavelli does not answer this question and so this counts as a negative in his analysis or a weak point in his work and this is due primarily to his impressionistic style.

It is this impressionism that has led critics to call the godfather films romantic which is an inaccurate description.

 In part 2 I will discuss the illegitimate vs. the legitimate in the Godfather trilogy