MovieChat Forums > The Godfather (1972) Discussion > Question for those that read the book

Question for those that read the book


Just to preface with the fact that I read the book back when it came out, so we're talking like almost 50 years here.

With regards to Luca Brasi: it didn't seem very wise of Vito Corleone to suggest to Luca that he attempt to infiltrate Tattaglia's family with a story about not being happy in the Corleone family. Face it, Vito was pretty shrewd. Luca was known to be one of Vito's closest friends and enforcers. It didn't seem likely that he would back stab Vito, although I guess in in the mobster's world anyone can be flipped. But still...

So my question is whether the book fleshed out this a bit, perhaps with Luca having been known to be a bit of a maverick or perhaps there's a history where Vito and Luca had a falling out some time in the past - something to explain why Sollozzo or Tattaglia would believe that Luca might possibly leave the Corleone family to join them.

reply

Let me say up front that you've made me connect the dots in a way that I hadn't considered before, and I think you've made a good point here. And sorry for the length of all this, but The Godfather happens to be one of my favorite books.

> I read the book back when it came out, so we're talking like almost 50 years here.

The last time I read it was a couple of years ago, but I've re-read it several times over the years, so I'm pretty confident I can make some useful remarks about these things.

> Luca was known to be one of Vito's closest friends and enforcers.

I wouldn't call their relationship "friends." Luca was a psychopath. Vito bailed him out of a tight jam (the baby and the furnace, if you remember that story). Luca, in his cracked view of life, essentially decided Vito was God and became insanely loyal to him.

As for Vito, his encounter with Luca at Connie's wedding says it all. Just after Luca left Vito's office, when Vito and Tom were alone together again, Vito gave a sigh of relief or something like that. The book stated that Luca was one of the few people in the world who could truly make the Don nervous; that Vito thought of Luca as being like dynamite that could accidentally go off at any moment ... but that even dynamite could be intentionally exploded in a safe manner if it became too hazardous. And it described Vito's manner and bearing when talking with Luca; never with familiarity, but always conveying that Luca was valued. Like a king receiving an especially important knight.

reply

(CONTINUED)

> It didn't seem likely that he would back stab Vito, although I guess in in the mobster's world anyone can be flipped.

Well, when Luca approached Tattaglia, he made it clear from the start that he would never act against Vito. Something like, "I would never go against the Don. I understand he must put his sons first."

It's also worth mentioning that in real life mobsters do sometimes switch families. Sammy "The Bull" Gravano started off with the Colombo Family but moved to the Gambino Family where he later became John Gotti's right hand man. Funny thing, the reason for Gravano's move was generally similar to the story Luca offered to Tattaglia; because of certain blood relationships with the Colombo Family, Gravano was being blocked from advancement he had earned. And in Gravano's case, the situation was recognized beforehand in the Colombo Family, that he was getting screwed; and so some very high people in the Colombo Family approved Gravano's move in advance.

Now there's no way Puzo could have used Gravano's story as an inspiration for Luca's, because that didn't happen until after The Godfather was published. But still, it makes you wonder how often people do move between Mafia families like that. And it does certainly suggest that Mafia families ultimately don't expect their members' loyalties to be absolute toward a specific family, but perhaps only to La Cosa Nostra as a whole; and it's worth mentioning that in real life, when Family X wants to open the books and promote a guy to "made man" status, they must get the approval of the other Families to do it. So, putting aside the fact that we're talking about Luca Brasi here, in general the story he approached Tattaglia with is not an unreasonable one.

reply

(CONTINUED)

The fictional world of The Godfather and the real Mafia are in sync in another important way. Members and associates of different Families exist in the same underworld and so get to know each other. In Nicholas Pileggi's book, Wiseguy, upon which the movie Goodfellas was based, Henry Hill describes socializing with members of other Families. (Great book; if you haven't read it, I recommend it.) And in The Godfather, when the Corleones need to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey, one of the reasons they send Michael to do it is because they know it's a given Sollozzo will have some of his own soldiers planted at the restaurant where they are to meet, and that any of their own experienced soldiers the Corleones tried to sneak in would be immediately recognized.

> perhaps with Luca having been known to be a bit of a maverick or perhaps there's a history where Vito and Luca had a falling out some time in the past

No, nothing like that. Luca's great talent is that he can murder without any help from anyone else, making it impossible for he and the Corleones to be betrayed on those matters by others turning state's evidence. And there's nothing to suggest any kind of falling out in the past. On the contrary, ever since Vito saved Luca's ass, Luca has been Vito's Man, period.

reply

(CONTINUED)

Now, let's consider a couple of other things.

When Luca began sucking up to the Tattaglias, dating one of their call girls, dropping hints he wasn't too happy with the Corleones, etc, after a while Bruno talked to Luca and said that maybe they could do some business. And Bruno agreed that it was already understood when Luca said he would never act against Vito. But when Luca didn't immediately jump at the first offer Bruno made, Bruno cooled off; still friendly enough, but in essence saying "ok Luca, we'll talk more about business later" but never getting around to it. Luca ended up reporting to Vito that his efforts seemed to have stalled out and were going nowhere, and Vito told him to keep trying but only as a sideline to his main duties. And the Tattaglias, Barzini, and Sollozzo were quick enough to murder Luca at the same moment they tried to kill Vito.

Second, as Sollozzo said in the movie, Vito was slipping. His best years, and clearest thinking, were behind him. There's Sollozzo's drug deal which Vito turned down; although it seemed that everyone else in the underworld understood that drugs were the wave of the future and that any Family that wanted to stay competitive would have to be involved in it. But also, among Vito's chief lieutenants were Sonny, who to his own credit understands and is honest with himself about his limitations; he says something to Tom like, "I know I'm not good at the long range stuff, but on short term action I'm as good as anyone else." There's Tom, a clever enough man for peacetime but not a "wartime consigliere." There's Fredo, who is ... well, Fredo. Underrated by many fans, it turns out later in the book that he's a genius at running a hotel, but certainly not the man for street action ... and yet on the day of the attempted assassination of Vito, Fredo was his bodyguard, the man Vito trusted with his life?

So, put all that together, and here's what you've got me thinking happened.

reply

(CONTINUED)

1) Vito, concerned that there might be trouble with Sollozzo after he refused the drug deal, came up with the idea to send Luca to spy. Was it in fact a good idea? No. At the height of his wily powers, Vito would have understood that Tattaglia would have known about Luca's fierce loyalty and immediately been suspicious. Back in the old days, Vito would have never thought this was a good plan. But now Vito, slipping, thought it was.

2) Luca agreed to it because he worshipped Vito. Whatever Vito wanted, Vito got. Period.

3) The Tattaglias and Barzini already knew Luca. Like I said, small underworld. And further, they already knew about Luca. The guy's gotta be a legend, right? They knew about his devotion to Vito. And so they knew it was suspicious that he was coming on to them like that, and highly unlikely he was on the level. Possible, but very improbable.

4) The Tattaglias and Barzini came up with this plan. Hey Bruno, meet with Luca. Find out what he has to say. Make him an offer, a very generous one. If he's serious he'll bite. If he's not, we'll know he's trying to pull something underhanded.

5) Luca meets with Bruno. Bruno makes the offer. Luca says, "lemme think it over." Bruno immediately knows Luca is full of crap.

6) The Tattaglias and Barzini continue to make Luca feel welcome. Go ahead, Luca, date our whores. Have free drinks on the house. Etc. Why? Because they know if they send Luca packing, that would be tantamount to telling the Corleones that they saw through Luca's act.

So ... does all this sound reasonable?

reply

Wow.

I had forgotten most of the things you talked about, but I do remember Luca tossing his baby into the furnace. I guess I had better read this book again.

Your more detailed explanation explains a lot. In the movie, Luca shows up, and 45 seconds later is dead. Seemed like a poorly planned idea. I had forgotten that the whole Tatagglia-Brasi thing took place over a lot more time than 45 seconds.

Thanks for your well considered and exhaustive comments.

reply

Hey, thanks for posting the question. It made me look at this in a whole new way. Up until now, I had always thought Vito's sending Luca to sniff around the Tattaglias was a fairly good idea ... not a wonderful one, but OK ... that just didn't pan out. But you're right, this wasn't Vito's finest moment.

An interesting thing about Puzo's book is that we never see things from the POV of Sollozzo, Barzini, or the Tattaglias. And their activities are never independently stated or hinted at, even in any omniscient third person narration or exposition. Everything we know about them is through the Corleones' eyes. So we only learn about them through the Corleones' interactions with them, worries, speculations, etc. And we only even notice them when the Corleones do.

This can conceal things like Vito's clumsiness in this situation. Here's another example. When Sonny was lured out to his death, it was by a long chain of events. Carlo's girlfriend called his home and spoke to Connie. Connie got mad and gave Carlo grief about it. Carlo beat her up. She called the compound and spoke to Sonny. He rushed out in a rage and drove to set Carlo straight. But he never arrived because Barzini's people were waiting at the toll booth.

Brilliant, huh? Wow, Barzini must be a real genius, to be able to predict everyone's reactions in that kind of detail. And it worked. What a frightfully clever plan!

Absurd. There are so many what-ifs in that plan that, if viewed as a single, carefully thought out master stroke, it's not brilliant but the height of stupidity. What if Connie hadn't been home when Carlo's girlfriend called? What if when Connie phoned the compound, Tom had answered? Or what if she had talked to Sonny but he had kept his head together enough that, instead of driving to deal with Carlo, he had ordered that Carlo be brought to him?

reply

(CONTINUED)

The plan is brilliant in a different way, though. If any link in the chain had failed, the Corleones would have never suspected anything was amiss. Suppose for example that Connie phoned and Tom answered. He'd know that the very last thing he should do is tell Sonny. So maybe he tells Vito, maybe he doesn't. But does this make them suspicious? Carlo's already an ass, and he's beaten her before. Nothing new there, just the same old shit on a different day.

Considering that we only see Barzini's actions when the Corleones do, his weird scheme suddenly makes sense. My take on it is this. This wasn't the first time he had tried something like that. He had probably made several attempts to get Sonny out into the open; all designed, like this one, to go unnoticed if they failed. This one is different because we readers see it, and the reason we see this one is because the Corleones noticed it, and the reason they noticed it is because this time it actually worked.

I'm gonna re-read the book again; I want to see if anything about Luca, Bruno, etc strikes me differently now.

reply


There are so many what-ifs in that plan that, if viewed as a single, carefully thought out master stroke, it's not brilliant but the height of stupidity. What if Connie hadn't been home when Carlo's girlfriend called? What if when Connie phoned the compound, Tom had answered? Or what if she had talked to Sonny but he had kept his head together enough that, instead of driving to deal with Carlo, he had ordered that Carlo be brought to him?


Considering that Barsini wanted to get back at Vito by killing Sonny, there could have been several situational attempts made that didn't go off as planned. For instance, if Connie wasn't home when Carlo's girlfriend called, I suspect Carlo would have had her try again (assuming this is all part of Sonny's setup). Perhaps Carlo called her from the drugstore and told her to call because Connie was home.

If Tom answered when Connie called home, she most likely would have asked for Sonny as she didn't seem that close to Tom.

Sonny was a hothead and most likely would react the way he did. He did it before when he found Carlo in his popsicle suit and beat the snot out of him in the street.

Predictable behavior for Santino, no?

If any of the plan backfired, I'm sure they would have tried again or went to backup plan #2 (or #5?)

Thanks again for the info.

reply

> there could have been several situational attempts made that didn't go off as planned [...] If any of the plan backfired, I'm sure they would have tried again or went to backup plan #2 (or #5?)

Agreed on all of the above. There's a reason I'm bringing all this up, and it relates to the original topic (Vito/Luca/etc).

A few years ago, a friend and I got into an argument (friendly) about Sonny's death. His view was that Barzini's scheme here was so clever that it was guaranteed to work. A single master stroke, meticulously crafted, with every possible contingency anticipated in advance.

I tried convincing him of what I'm stating here. The plan relied on a long chain of things, each of which was, as you said twice, "most likely" to happen ... but not certain. If there's one big thing that relies on a lot of little things, each of which individually are extremely likely to happen, but if all of them must happen for the big thing to succeed, that success becomes at best fairly likely, nothing more. But given that we only see things from the Corleones POV, for all we and they know, this might have already been plan #5. That's Barzini's genius.

At the time I offered that argument, I felt I might be acting like one of Star Trek's more rabid fans, making up stuff to explain after the fact what might be nothing more than careless mistakes by the writers. Let's face it, Puzo's novel does contradict itself at times. So my crediting him with that much care in thinking through every detail might be unjustified. Maybe Puzo had just whomped up the most entertainingly intricate scheme he could think of, not caring whether it was truly plausible or not.

reply

(CONTINUED)

I still thought my view of Sonny's death is the more reasonable one, but was never strongly convinced this was what Puzo had in mind. But thinking through this topic about Luca, Vito, etc, has me more convinced. Both seem to be like little puzzles left for the reader to figure out. Both require stepping away from the Corleones' eyes and looking at things from other characters' perspectives.

So now I'm wondering if there might be more things like that in the novel. Things that aren't visible on the surface but only become apparent after some similar examination. I'm definitely going to re-read it. Slowly. :)

Now, here's the problem. As I said earlier, it's been a couple of years since I read the book. So to make sure I wasn't getting anything horribly wrong in this dicussion, I just now went and re-read Chapter 7, all about Luca and his death. And I did get a couple of things wrong. For example, Bruno made the job offer to Luca early on, only a week after Luca had dropped hints via one of Bruno's call girls that he wasn't terribly happy with the Corleones. And there was a consider amount of back-and-forth after that about Luca's possibly coming to work for the Tattaglias.

I don't think any of that really changes the main flow of my reasoning. The Corleones' enemies tried to hire him, and when he wouldn't accept full employment they knew they couldn't trust him. But I'm going to take a day or two and think this through, try to get comfortable that I haven't overlooked anything, before I go further with this.

On a funny side note: in the book, Luca made his first overtures by grumbling in bed to one of Tattaglia's call girls that he was undervalued in the Corleone Family. Now, think about Luca as seen in the movie. Can you imagine that guy pillow talking with a woman? "Honey, I hope our first child is a masculine child ..."

reply

For example, Bruno made the job offer to Luca early on, only a week after Luca had dropped hints via one of Bruno's call girls that he wasn't terribly happy with the Corleones. And there was a consider amount of back-and-forth after that about Luca's possibly coming to work for the Tattaglias.


AH HA!!!!!!!

That answers my question perfectly. In the movie, we are led to believe that Luca calls Tattaglia and says he's not happy with Vito and is willing to jump ship - just like that. Why *would* Tattaglia fall for that story and why would Vito suggest it?

Vito's plan does backfire, yes, but you've fleshed it out to show there's more to it.

Seems that hearing about Luca's dissatisfaction second hand (through a whore no less) would at least add a bit of believability to the plan, even if they eventually saw through it.

Thanks again!

reply

Maybe Puzo had just whomped up the most entertainingly intricate scheme he could think of, not caring whether it was truly plausible or not.


Writers have the advantage of addressing questions post novel because anything not written can be amended.

For instance, maybe the plan was simpler than we thought...

Maybe Carlo's GF calling was not part of the plan. She calls, Connie does the spoiled -brat routine (not saying it wasn't out of line), Carlo does his slap-the-spoiled-wife-around bit like he always did, sees Connie call Sonny, and panics.

Carlo calls Barzini and tells him Sonny is on his way to kick his ass. Barzini gets his men out to the causeway before Sonny arrives. They see Sonny arrive at the toll plaza alone. The rest is history.

If Sonny shows up with a bunch of goons, the ambush is cancelled and they move onto plan #9..

Thanks again.

reply

That was quite an impressive analysis! The Luca/Vito dynamic is fascinating and I agree with all of your conclusions.

reply

Thanks. Have you read Ed Falco's "The Family Corleone"? (ISBN 978-0446574631) It's a prequel, set around the time Sonny was a teenager, and apparently gets much more into Luca's backstory.

I say "apparently" because I tried reading it and couldn't finish it. Falco's a professional writer and all that, but I didn't care for it at all. In fact, I'll go further and say that I thought it was intolerably bad. I'll also say that I'm not alone in this; a full quarter of the reviews on Amazon give the book three stars or less.

So I'm not going to exactly recommend the book. But I'll be fair and acknowledge that 75% of those Amazon reviewers gave it four or five stars, for what that's worth. So I won't urge anyone away from it, either. Anyway, if you're interested in Luca you might wanna give it a ... err, cautious ... look. ;)

reply

I have not read it. I wasn't even aware of it, so thank you for the information. It claims to be based on a Puzo screenplay, which is interesting.

reply

I'm doing that as a fresh reply instead of continuing the chain of replies because the texts were getting narrower and it was becoming clumsy. As I said above, I wanted to take a day or two to think this over before continuing. That was because I realized that in recalling the timeline from memory I had got some things wrong. But when I looked further I saw something else that I hadn't noticed before. Apologies for going on at length again, but this strikes me as fascinating.

Now, it's pretty well known that there are sections of The Godfather which don't fit seamlessly together. The middle section, covering Vito's ascent to power, has inconsistencies with other parts of the book. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is Sonny's age. In the first part of the book Tom Hagen muses over his life as he flies to meet with Jack Woltz, and that section establishes that Sonny was born around 1910. But in the middle section, the robbery by teenaged Sonny establishes that he was born around 1918. Both times the margin of error is at most a year, so both cannot be correct.

That's not the only discrepancy. A few years ago someone posted a pretty nice analysis of differences in style, other facts, etc. I can't find it now, but if I do I'll relay the information here. But I think there's a fairly convincing case that Puzo tried to merge two different stories but wasn't entirely successful in reconciling things. Maybe he had another story which he tried to turn into part of The Godfather; or maybe had two different concepts of The Godfather itself and tried to use ideas from both those. Who knows? Those are all inferences and speculations ... but it is a known fact that Puzo was rushed for time when he wrote the book, which helps explain why the inconsistencies weren't ironed out, whatever the reason.

How does that relate to Luca?

reply

(CONTINUED)

There are two different versions of Luca Brasi in the book. In the early chapters, including the business with Sollozzo and Bruno, he comes off as a dangerous but quite sane man. He lives with some distant relatives, which he likes because it gives him something of a family life. He has a pleasant enough relationship with Bruno. He has buddies he gambles with. He dates girls. Yes, he's exceptionally talented; he can kill without any help. Yes, he has enormous respect for and fear of Vito. But those things are all attributes common to other characters, just taken to a greater degree. Paulie Gatto is quite talented (he's Clemenza's special protege); Luca is more talented. Nazorine loves Vito, and both he and Bonasera fear him; Luca more so. Yes, his physical appearance is intimidating, but the Family certainly has others of whom that could be said.

We do hear two stories about Luca. One is that he was with Vito when he met with Les Halley to force him to release Johnny Fontane from his contract, Luca accompanied him; but it was Vito who held the gun to Halley's head. The other one we hear but don't hear, that there's some story about Luca that's so scary no one ever talks about it ... which on its own could mean almost anything.

Any pathology? Tessio observes that Luca is "very touchy." His love and fear of Vito are beyond what others feel toward him. In a world of violent and dangerous people, he's more so than most. None of that's enough to justify sending him to the therapist's couch. And in Chapter 7, describing Luca's dealings with Bruno and Sollozzo, including his own inner thoughts, he's certainly calm and rational.

Between their learning that Vito was shot, but before they learn Luca is dead, the inner circle's conversations about Luca essentially revolve around these points: (1) When Luca checks in we'll have the upper hand. (2) Why haven't we heard from Luca? (3) If Luca has flipped we're in real trouble.

reply

(CONTINUED)

On that last point, Hagen, Sonny, Clemenza, and Tessio all opine that Luca betraying them is very unlikely but still possible. Clemenza comes the closest to saying it's impossible but also acknowledges, "Anybody could go wrong, look at Paulie."

It's only in the flashback section of The Godfather that Luca comes off as a wacko. When Al Capone tried to kill Vito, Luca went at the hit men with an ax while they were still alive. He forced Filomena to kill his own child, and she recalls him as being "like [a] mad animal" with "insanity stamped on his face." He murders the mother of his baby. After he's arrested for that, he attempts suicide in his cell by cutting his own throat.

When the text returns to the 1940s and 1950s, we're almost back to the earlier Luca. Michael does refer to him as "an animal," and Vito speaks of how there are some people who seem to demand to be killed and how to turn them to ones advantage. OK, Luca's got some issues. But this is nothing close to how he's described in the flashback section. And when Al Neri is referred to as Michael's Luca Brasi, it's clear that the connotations are only that Neri has a strong violent streak, is unusually capable, and is very loyal to Mike; not that Neri is mentally disturbed.

So, we've got Hardass Luca (but sane). And we've got Wacko Luca. It makes sense that the insane Wacko Luca would be insanely devoted to Vito, but the matter with Sollozzo happened with Hardass Luca. So, ignoring Wacko Luca, a different picture emerges. And before going on, having re-read the sections, I have to amend my description of the timeline ...

Here's what happened. Vito sent Luca to ingratiate himself with the Tattaglias. The idea was to make them think he wasn't interested in joining them but would like a piece of the narcotics operation, as a free lance independent. Bruno almost immediately offered a job with the Tattaglias. Luca didn't accept but didn't unequivocally turn it down. The two left it as an open matter. Vito told Luca to keep trying but only as a sideline. On the night before Vito was shot, Sollozzo met with Luca and opened discussions toward Luca making a switch. Luca deferred. Sollozzo killed him.

reply

(CONTINUED)

Considering all that, here's my revised theory of what happened.

1) Vito sends Luca to sniff around the Tattaglias. It was actually a pretty good idea. Vito was slipping, but this wasn't his failure. His failures were ignoring the implications of the Tattaglias not engaging Luca as a free lance worker; leaving the whole matter hanging as "well, keep trying" without exploring other tactics; and not giving it further thought.

2) Luca agreed to it because Vito wanted it, but also because it was a reasonable plan. Unlikely that anyone else would think he'd flip, but not impossible ... and he'd only be fishing for some free lance work.

3) The Tattaglias et al were ready to employ Luca, but knew there would be a problem with split loyalties. They could only rely on him if they knew he was prepared to fully give his first loyalty to them. So it had to be full employment or nothing.

4) When Luca didn't immediately accept, Bruno left it as an open matter because they wanted Luca to work for them. If he wanted to mull it over for a while, fine. Luca was a guy worth extra effort in recruiting. But they didn't have forever.

5) The time came to kill Vito. Sollozzo et al knew this meant the time had come to force the issue on Luca. Even iff Luca was completely on board with them, there would still be problems with him after Vito's death. But unless they had his full loyalty already, he'd certainly be their enemy once they killed Vito.

6) Sollozzo made the final offer to Luca. Luca didn't bite. And they killed him.

reply

Makes perfect sense. Now you've got me interested in re-reading the novel.

reply