Replies

That's why the movie is a tragedy in the classic sense. Both Vito and Michael do what they do for the sake of their family. In Part 2, we see how Vito falls into a life of crime after the local Black Hand boss takes away his job at the grocery store, and how he rises up in the community as a respected figure, a godfather who helps old ladies who are getting evicted. But Michael has a character flaw--his sense of honor and family is so strong that it has perverted itself. The tragedy is that, while saying he's doing everything for the sake of his family, he in fact destroys his family. He kills his brother and his brother-in-law. He drives away his sister and his wife. In the end, he's all alone. The family honor has been upheld, but there's no family anymore. And he sees that it's happening. In Part 2 he asks his mother how his father did it, and if, by being strong for his family, he could lose it, which is exactly what happens. But he can't stop it, because, like the Greeks said, character is destiny.

Good analysis. The author of this article misses the point. He tries to make it black and white--Godfather good and moral, State evil and corrupt. What makes The Godfather such an enduring film is its complexity. Coppola's genius is in his daring to present a figure who seems both moral and evil at the same time. But this is an impossibility. A moral man would not kill another man. If Vito Corleone had chosen to, he could have been a wealthy, powerful man by just building an importing empire, or whatever. But he chose to take the short cut through crime. This article is pure rubbish.