It's time for the Best Post Contest! Vote by Fantastic flag! Create a category, make a post, join the fun! Why did Michael fail where Vito succeeded?
Why did Michael fail where Vito succeeded? April 2, 3: I'm rewatching the Godfather series on Blu-Ray, and one nagging question occurs to me: Vito starts from nothing as an orphan entering the U.
He's lost Santino, but that's arguably Sonny's fault for being impulsive and manipulable at a time when Vito is incapacitated, and that's the only serious loss Vito faces.
At the end of each movie, though, Michael is shown having lost part of the family for whom he's doing it all: Michael is as smart and brutal as Vito was, and is very successful over the course of his life in building wealth and power and destroying his enemies. Arguably, he's more successful--Vito was shot and the family nearly destroyed, while Michael is never so much as scratched.
And Michael succeeds in legitimizing the family business, getting out of the vice rackets on which Vito built the family empire.
Yet it's all for naught, because the family for whom he does this is driven away by it, if not killed. In terms of Michael's life, it makes sense because the connection is always drawn between his actions and the resulting problem with his family; it just doesn't make sense with the contrast to Vito's story that's especially prominent in part II.
What am I missing? In both the movie and book the idea that it's "business, not personal" is repeated several times, but at a key point in the book, Michael says "It's all personal" contradicting his earlier statements.
I think Michael lead the family in a quest for power, and partly to prove himself to be an adequate successor to his father, while Vito lead the family simply as a way to provide for and protect his family.
Michael's different goals lead him to be harder, colder, less forgiving and eventually alienated him from his family.
I think the contrast between the two is interesting partly because the person who suffered so much while young and had no advantages is happier than the person who was given everything. Michael Corleone is a son of America, and the question of legitimacy -- legitimacy in terms of what?
Or, what Dmenet said. This underlying theme is discussed by Coppola in the recent Vanity Fair article: I've never taken Michael at his word for that.
I know he says it a lot, but the impression I remember is that he's doing it for his father, maybe, but as for his actual living family I'm not sure about that. Remember that Vito lost his own son to violence far before Michael did, and he never really recovered from his gunshot wounds.
But I think overall your point stands. I would say that Vito loved his family and so he gained power, and that Michael loved power and so he used his family.
Michael pushes his family away. When he goes to the hospital, he does save his father's life, but his love for his family is mixed with a combination of both his realization that he is good at this game, and the anger that he feels at the police captain for the attack, to motivates his revenge hit.
He lies to Kate: He kills his own brother. And his son dies because he can't stop his power grabs while already insanely wealthy. Solazzo has a point when he says to Hagen "Could I have gotten the old man five or ten years ago? I read the book many, many years ago, but I seem to recall that it emphasized that Michael really was in it for the same reasons his father was: Perhaps someone can correct me on that.
That was what made him hard and cold.
Vito could be brutal but he never forgot how to love. I'm not sure that Michael ever loved again after that. But I think that after the car bomb he treated love as weakness.
Can we even imagine Mama having Kay's or even Connie's privileges, choices, attitudes, or reactions? That makes an enormous difference in the ways these guys "run" and relate to their families and how they see their roles in family life.Compare and contrast how the relationship between parent and child is portrayed in "The Son's Veto" by Thomas Hardy, and V.S.
Pritchett's "The Fly in the Ointment." Thomas Words; 3 Pages; Empathic Essay As Leila Empathetic essay The feeling of love itself is pure, serene, and peaceful in a way that nothing else can be. Compare and Contrast Essay "The Father" by H.
Garner and "Penny in the Dust" by E.
Buckler The father and son relationships in "Penny in the Dust" by E. Buckler and ""The Father" by H. Garner, have many contrasts and similarities. Thomas Hardy's, "The Son's Veto," and "The Fly in the Ointment" by V.S. Pritchett both tell stories of a young man and his parent. However, the role each "boy" assumes in the story is very different.
AP US History: From The Age of Exploration to Hurricane Katrina. STUDY. PLAY. It was passed over President Harry Truman's veto. The anti-communist fervor was bi-partisan and only seven Democratic senators voted to uphold the veto. To that end, Congress proposed to end the special relationship between tribes and the federal government.
A Father and Son Relationship. Life in the s was a very male-dominant time. The father was the head of the house and his work was passed on to his sons. A solid relationship between a father and his sons was essential to sustaining a strong household.
If the relationship began to decline, the whole family collapsed. - Father and Son Relationship in William Shakespeare's Henry IV and V Shakespeare deals with a parent-child relationship in the historical plays of Henry IV Parts One and Two in the characters of Henry Bullingsworth (Henry IV) and his son Hal (Prince of Wales, later Henry V).