Why wasn't Michael arrested after returning from Sicily? The Godfather Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- In Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, there a question that arises with Michael Coreone's return from Sicily happening so seamlessly - Wasn’t he still a wanted man for the killing of McClusky and Virgil Sollozzo?
Wouldn’t the cops arrest him as soon as he arrived back into the country? It’s not as if he lived in hiding, and the law weren’t aware of his return - in fact in the second film he’s a well-known businessman, with the murder of Sollozzo and McClusky bought up in the hearings that Michael is subjected to, where he denies committing the murders. In a scene in the first film, Tom Hagen even refuses to take a letter from Kay addressed for Michael, as it could be then proved in a court of law that he knows where Michael is. This suggests the cops were actively looking for him. Let's take a look at something in the book which the movie never mentions.
BECOME A MEMBER: / @cineranter
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL ON PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=8580945
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: / cineranter
FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: / cineranter1
FOLLOW ME ON TIKTOK: / cineranter - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
The fact that the cat Brando is holding, just "walked in", and was not meant to be in the scene, is amazing acting.
Yeah,but in The Godfather 3 there’s a portrait of Don Corleone with what I assumed was supposed to be that cat but instead of it being a mackerel which is was what he held in the first movie it was a red dilute tabby,after all,this is multi million dollar production,couldn’t the people in charge of the film’s continuity at least have gotten that minor detail correct?
Vito gave the cat to Lucas girlfriend later. He ate the fish in Lucas vest
The cat needs to be nominated as the best supporting actor. I knew a cat called Oscar.
I always thought the white cat was a nod to Connery's wildly popular James Bond films by immediately connecting Corleone to another legendary villain with a white cat, Blofeld.
The boardroom scene where Vito mentions that he needs to make arrangements to bring Michael back to the US "cleared of all these false charges" and then threatens the other Dons by listing all the tricks they might pull to have Michael killed upon his return (shot in the head by a police officer, hang himself in his jail cell, etc.) I think covered it enough for the film. By then we know how powerful Vito is and we just figure that whatever strings need to be pulled, who needs to be paid off, he is going to do. And so do all the others, which is why he warns them not to interfere.
Exactly. That is all the exposition that the movie needs. A novel? Time to make it more believable and tie up all loose ends.
Yep
Vito sums it up
I'll add to this that I doubt any person in the restaurant might want to ID Michael positively. Even if one did, what do they have? They saw a dark haired man in his 20s, probably Mediterranean. How many men fitting Michael's general appearance were living in New York at that time?
It was fine as it is. I just figured it was because he was a dirty cop killed along with a known thug they didn't pursue it.
Sounds about right...there was no cameras or dna back then, and i highly doubt any witnesses woulda stepped forward so ya that pretty much took care of itself.
Yeah, his return & freedom didn't raise eyebrows then so it's only talking point addicted detail obsessives making an issue of this.
It was very obvious that the real threat was rival families not law enforcement & lawmakers who were on the payroll. He's a the Mafia not some common car thief.
That doesnt matter Crooked or not... Mclusky im sure had friends on the Department that would look for Revenge
Mckluski was a police captain so they're definitely going to pursue the killer regardless of being crooked not to mention Michael was accused of killing him in the Godfather part 2
@BigCheech 4509 definitely. I lovedvtge part in the book where the Balcchicio clan is mentioned. The solution Don Corleone came up with was pure genius.
Although not mentioned by name, the Bochicchio’s method during negotiations was referenced in the film when Clemenza states that the negotiator keeps playing cards until Michael comes back safe and sound from the meeting with Solozo.
in the book, there was a young Italian man who was going to be sentenced to death for an unrelated murder. Vito essentially offered to take care of that man's family for life, if only he would confess to the murders of Sollozzo and McClusky.
The movies unfortunately leave out some of the subplots of the book. There are a handful whose omission was really disappointing:
1. How Michael was able to evade responsibility for the murders of Sollozzo and McClusky
2. How Michael's family was able to arrange for Michael's security during the meeting with Sollozzo
3. The background of Luca Brazzi
4. The crime war that led to the Godfather's ascendency in the world of crime
Of course there were some subplots best left on the cutting room floor too - the whole hollywood story was one of them, as was the story about some woman's....errrr...body part
#2 was particularly interesting. The psycho family that acted as hostages.
Great points
@@r.plante2916 The Bocchicchio family took Omerta to the next level.
@@georgejackson4426 Aha! I couldn't remember their names. As Plante said above that was probably the best subplot that got left out of the movie. There was a side reference to a 'guy playing pinochle, they're letting him win', but they don't explain the details.
It would have been way too disturbing to include Luca Brasi's past, even if it was just mentioned.
The fact that it wasn't mentionned in the movie bring a fog of mystery and also give more credibility about how powerful they are in term of connexion
Because in life we never know how they get away with all those crimes
That was very interesting. I think it should have been included in the movie. That whole Bochicchio business is something I never heard of with all the sit-downs that mob films have shown us. It's a very fascinating mindset; especially the part about the son waiting a year, then blowing away those guys, walking over to a coffee shop, and just waiting to be arrested and eventually executed for the crime. It would have added value to the movie, and tied up the loose end of Michael's uncomplicated return to New York and takeover of the Corleone family.
Not including these details enabled the audience to experience Michael's return as Kay did: out of the blue.
the film is perfect as is. Knowing the missing scenes of how Michael could come home and not be hunted is good to know
It would make a good separate movie, The Bocchicchios.
Very good explanation for Michael’s return. Also a good demonstration that family was important and even though the convict was going to be imprisoned for a long time or executed, he didn’t want his family to suffer for his sins. He confessed to the Solasso murder to give his family a better life
"The hostage is fine they're playing pinochle, they're letting him win"--Peter Clemenza, The Godfather. Small notations were made to the Bocchicchios but was never elucidated upon. Pretty critical to cover this CR, I read the book but never thought to talk about that..nice my man! A lot of stuff went on in the book that wasn't covered in the movie at all, thank god some stuff wasn't like, Lucy Mancini's....well..no need to go there..lol. Nice drop CR, a cold banger for sure.
In the movie, though, he doesn't call him a hostage, he calls him a negotiator.
I think Sollozzo considered McClusky his hostage. I remember how Tom Hagen argued that McClusky was untouchable due to him being a police captain, so it's likely Sollozzo thought the same way. He thought the Corloene Family wouldn't risk any plot which might get McClusky killed, especially with Michael being there.
Excellent stuff. Always love your videos.
The movie had to leave a lot of little things like this out... otherwise it would have been another hour longer
Very well explained.
I still want to know what happened to Sollozzo's driver. After Michael shoots them and walks out of the restaurant the car is still there and Michael gets picked up by a car but no sign of the driver.
Yeah, the Felix Bochichio part might affect the story pacing negatively (if the details were included, because he has a good character background). Too bad Mario Puzo is gone. He can write a spin-off of Godfather with Felix's: another tragic story of a crime family member who wants to get out from the business.
I always like your content. This was one of the best! The movie should have tried to include that part of the story- it was an important thing to know to understand the entire plot. Still, it’s hard to second guess Mr. Coppola after so many years. This is in my opinion the best mob movie, and perhaps the best movie ever made!
Thanks for posting this and so many other film videos!!
The A.F.I. rated The Godfather as the #3 greatest film ever made..that's pretty high.
It’s not a mob movie. It’s a film about family and loyalty where the main characters happen to be involved with the mafia. Goodfellas is a mob movie.
It's as if King Lear had 3 sons.
"The movie should have tried to include that part of the story- it was an important thing to know to understand the entire plot. " The plot is: what events transpire that transform Michael from a morally upright war veteran to a heartless criminal.
Many characters and incidents in the book are ignored in the films, e.g.:
Vito's confrontation with Al Capone.
Vito's introduction and explanation of the term, Cosa Nostra.
The Dean Martin character.
The Ava Gardner character.
The brutal cop who takes Luca's place.
Any Godfather film buff who has not bothered to read Puzo's novel is doing himself a disservice.
Wasnt the brutal cop al neri?
Always amazed me in every mob movie or TV series, the number of people killed, yet the lack of police follow through. Lines you will never hear in a mob movie-- "Gee, Daddy didn't come home for the past week, shouldn't we call the police to find out where he is?" "Hello Mrs. Gazzo? This is the police. We found your son's body in a car with a bullet in his head. Do you have any idea of who might have wanted to kill your son?" Another question, how did the police not get involved in Sonny's murder? It was at a public toll booth, with plenty of bullet holes and broken glass. Did they just shrug and let the Corleone family take the stiff and bring him to Bonasera's Funeral Parlor, no questions asked?
You see the same thing nowadays in gangland murders. The cops might have a 50-60% clearance rate everywhere else in the city, but in the hood, it's 5-10%. An SUV with three people in it can get shot up by five gunmen in broad daylight with a dozen witnesses around, and when the cops show up, no one saw a damn thing. The killers used stolen guns and left very little evidence behind except a bunch of shell casings. Most importantly, witnesses won't talk. The cops decide "well, another gang murder" and move onto the next practically unsolvable gang murder.
That's pretty much how it goes. If you look close at the history of mob murders, there were plenty that had the potential for multiple witnesses but pretty much everyone dummies up if pressed by the cops.
Yep. Same with The Sopranos. Tony kills the r*t while taking Meadow to schools in "College" and no cop ever investigates the case. T had no time to get rid of the body, he just went back to the motel with Meadow. The guy's body would have been found the next day. But nothing happens because Chase & Co just didn't have time to explain it. It doesn't matter to the story.
Tony kills another guy, which we know bosses do not do. He shoots Pep in the boat and he and Silvio take the man's boat out to sea. We imagine they dump him in the water, like Big Puss, but the boat is full of DNA. What happens when Tony & Syl bring it back to the marina?
How about the great episode of "Funhouse?" Tony, Paulie, & Syl whack their friend Puss on a cabin cruiser. Sure, they dumped his body in the ocean, but the cabin would be full of blood. No one noticed?
The idea of mobsters just getting away with murder is something we have to suspend our disbelief over. Or else no plot could move on. It's fantasy, not reality.
@@mrd3016 jersey is this pygmy thing, a glorified crew, I thought that was one of the themes of the show because that's sure how they act
When it comes to the families, even in real life when someone is whacked the case isn't exactly a priority for police. The police knew who was who so when they found Paulie dead they knew who he was and who probably killed him. Same with Sonny. You have to understand that the mob rarely kill outsiders unless it's absolutely necessary so when a mob member is found dead chances are it was another mob member who did the killing. I mean, with all the death and mayhem caused by Al Capone the only thing that ended up getting him was tax evasion. Unless someone is on the level of the Ice Man these guys usually skated.
I saw The Godfather in the theater before I read the book. I remember thinking "Well, there's a whole bunch of people I never want to meet".
I know how it’s explained in the book, that someone offers to be a patsy in order for his family to be provided for. In the movie though, I don’t think you need that explanation. I’m sure McClusky didn’t go around telling everyone he was going to dinner with a drug dealer and a mafia boss’ son, and the Turk is dead, so who’s there to say it with Michael?
The whole idea of using a loud gun was to scare witnesses off, and they probably couldn’t have picked Michael out of a line up anyways.
Anyone else who knew Michael was there would be part of the underworld and subject to the mob’s rules on silence and would never go to the authorities.
Clemenza’s workers at the news papers did a good enough job painting McClusky as a dirty cop, so I’m sure that in time it was accepted that McClusy was out with some bad dudes and got shot. They found him dead next to a drug dealer after all. And for all anyone in the police department knew he may have just been collateral damage on a hit meant for the Turk, thus making unlikely they’d ever be able to solve who pulled the trigger.
I have heard that when faced with a line-up, witnesses would say "I don't know, he was wearing a mask at the time." No one with any sense wanted to identify a mobster (unless there was a predetermined guarantee as was the case in the book).
I was always wondering how he was able to return without being arrested. Thank you for the info, I didn't read the book.
Absolute Genius! And it goes to show how fate works and how brilliant The Don was!
Everyone: " you can't/don't kill a cop"
Tony Montana: "WHOEVER SAID YOU WAS ONE"
This really was one of the most amazing and fascinating parts of the book
Yes, movie viewers DID NOT READ Mario Puzo's book and the explanation of how Michael returned back to the States without going through the courts is very understandable. But the film handled it very well and subtext - Don Corleone was a man with a lot of connections, a lawyer, a good lawyer, who was also Consiglieri, and few people to come to testify.
Excuse me, sir. I read the book years before I first saw the movie. Books on shelves have no ratings, and the movie was out of the theaters before I could buy a ticket to it, so I had to wait for us to get cable before I could see the whole movie, rather than just scenes.
I think it's right they didn't include the Bocchichio subplot in the film. It would have deviated from the main plot and caused confusion since it had only marginal influence on the main story. Films can't explain everything that's in a book.
I kind of like the way the movie let's you imagine Vito's power for yourself. Like when he does the favor for the baker, he tells Tom to give it to a congressman. You don't need all the details like which congressman and why he's indebted to Vito and what he does to make it happen they just elude to his power and let you imagine. Same with Michael's return. All that stuff works in a book but it would make a movie so long. They did a great job showing Vito's power without actually showing it in the movie
It's a fascinating subplot, but there is no chance at all that it could have been included in the film. Coppola was already getting enormous pressure to keep the movie under three hours as it was.
I assumed the answer was officially, no one knew who did it. There were little to no witnesses and those that might be (the restaurant staff?) can easily be silenced. Prosecution would have no case.
This is what I always assumed. Never had any problem with it.
The restaurant staff silenced themselves. They knew not to talk, and maybe it’s time to move to Cleveland or points west if they were in the room, which they would tell any police they weren’t.
I can imagine this whole plot thread adding another 15-30min to the movie.
But maybe instead, have one of those whirrling newspaper headlines saying that some guy admitted to the murders then another one saying he was convicted and then executed. That should take less then a minute total.
It's so interesting to hear about this Felix character. I'm glad this wasn't included in the film; to leave it ambiguous as to how Michael was able to return to the US without any problems. Therefore, the audience could come to their own conclusions regarding Michael's return.
Now im intrigued about this family.
Read the book many years ago have to read again don't recall that chapter will look for it
I remember that from the book. A very elegant solution.
When I saw this video, I was very intrigued. Then halfway through it, I remembered that I read the book at one point in time where it explains all this. Still giving it's a like, though.
Been a long time since I read The Godfather. I didn't even remember the stuff with Felix.
There are several attempts to reboot or remake the Godfather movie. If in case the producers, writers and director of the planned film. Evey story or scene left out from the book should be included in the new film or even in a t.v episode series. Like flash back. (Flash forward)
Such as the origin of Luca Brasi, Tom Hagen, Al Neri and others. It can be done.
I think they could have done two quick scenes of Tom talkin to Felix and then a courtroom scene to explain what happened.
I've always been of the opinion that "The Godfather lll" should have starred DeNiro and centered on the events that came after the end of the flashbacks in #2 and forward to shortly before the events of #1.
Showing the rise of Vito Corleone to the head of the families and how he survived while coalescing his political power.
I think it would have made for a much more involved and interesting story, rather than the crappy GF3 that we got.
It's just indicated in the movie that Vito had to help Michael "get cleared of all these...charges"
I forgot about Felix Bocchiccio. Even though I've read the book several times
They should have included it and made them a part of the film for sure - it never made sense that Michael was free and clear to me, until now
I think an interesting prequel woven into the original Godfather would have been the story of Felix and the Bochicchio Family, eventually intersecting the Coreleones, much like Don Corelone's origin story was woven into Godfather Part II.
Didn't the old man make it clear he had to "arrange things" for his son to come back? Don Corleone had all the judges and politicians in his pocket. Using his influence to get his son back by not having him investigated for shooting a crooked police captain wouldn't be that hard in his position.
Apparently, a lot of scenes were filmed but not used until the TV showing that combined both films. The could have filmed it and sat on it for use in the future. Now, I am clearly aware that film making in 1971 was quite different than it is today with extended/special editions and directors' cuts. "Apocalypse Now" has a variety of different versions but that was a unique movie.
Either way it would have been OK.
For example in the meeting of the five families, Vito could have said casually that someone will take the fall for Michael’s safety.
However, it wasn’t something that that they didn’t have a solution for, and that’s probably why Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola left it out of the screenplay for the movie.
As it along with part II are two of the greatest movies ever made, I believe that it worked out OK!👌
Just read the book. A lot of questions about the movie get answered in it, including this one.
They could have explained it with expositional dialogue in 30-60 seconds. But even that could throw a wrench onto the pacing.
I wouldn't have minded 2 sentences addressing this issue in the movie, even if different from the book because otherwise I always thought that we were to infer Vito was so powerful that if all the mob bosses agreed not to touch Michael then the law would too...."if he were to get struck by lightning" really drives the whole dynamic home (and it's really funny too) that Vito can cover any legal charges alone but knows he needs the other families to let it go
I did wonder...and thank you...they could of added it I think
The movie literally states that family has people doing the newspapers. They even have a montage of news letters saying in was a gang hit. It's not that hard to figure out that they covered it up.
THINGS CHANGE - Plot line
yeah thank you! i like this
I don't think there was really a reason to even address it. Michael says how their newspaper people "would love a story" about a "dirty cop who was mixed up in drugs and got what was coming to him."
So the Corleone Family had the police in a position where the more the murder was investigated, the worse it would look for the department in the press. So while the murder probably caused some initial outrage, the matter would eventually be swept under the rug.
Thanks for this. I think it shouldn't have been included. Like you said, the evidence against Michael was quite superficial by official standards. It was more likely about other corrupt policemen knowing about the meeting. And one could argue if the corrupt bastard was that respected anyway?
(For some years I was actually wondering what was the big deal about sending Michael off to Sicily. There are easier ways to stay low for a while.)
Definitely need to hear more about this 'Bocicio' clan
Movie-wise it was probably best that this info was left out. That's the difference between a movie in a book book has the luxury of not painting a picture but weaving a complicated tapestry.
The most we get in the film is Vito’s comment that he’ll have to “clear him of all these false charges.” Plus his implicit threats to other Dons at the meeting (“shot in the head by a police officer,” etc.) make it a matter settled at that point. The film, already making it clear Vito’s reach into legal circles and law enforcement, decides to leave it at lethal suggestion.
But it’s a question worth asking. How does one kill a police captain and a known criminal in front of patrons in a restaurant and just get away with it? We may think this would be easy. But even a well-connected man would have to go through some hassle and questions.
In the movie it was a definite plot hole. That whole Italian side plot was strange as when he returns he does not really acknowledge his blown up fiancee
It is clearly explained in the book.
Book explains it.
I think i would have distracted some viewers to have this subplot and details inserted into the movie but a line about this could have worked. A short mention of the situation.
If they put it anywhere, it should have been put in part 3. That would have probably made the movie more likeable. I personally likes part three but I know most people didn't. Maybe that would have swayed some over
I always wondered why wasn't he arrested lol
They could’ve written a movie on events from the two years hiding in Sicily and New York.
Careful or you'll summon the Prequel Dragon
Never knew this
The special tape on the grip doesnt keep fingerprints off, you just unwind the tape after you shoot and your prints are on the tape, not the grips on the gun.
He was "cleared of all these false charges".
I didn't mind not including that story in the movie since I thought the case they could have brought against Michael could have been resolved several ways, most importantly witness tempering.
What bothered me was that in the movie Clemenza mentioned a hostage. That makes sense, but a hostage exchange only makes sense if both sides provide a hostage. So what happened to the Corleone hostage after the murder? How did they make sure he wasn't killed after that planned hit?
they realy shude place this in the movie, omg what a amazin family and turn of a events !
I'm conflicted; the Bochicchio information would have been a great addition, but I don't think the movie suffered for lack of it They could have had a director's cut to include it along with some other smaller scenes.
i think the entire subplot could have been summed up quickly, it's just a matter of bringing it up. but, the details don't matter because this is a movie with a lot of names and characters already, adding more would be even more confusing.
They should have included it in the movie!!!
I'm a wee bit confused. So if there was a "hostage" taken to insure Michael's safety during that fateful meeting, was that hostage also killed after that meeting or let go? Or is such irrelevant?
Don Vito had politicians and judges in his pocket🤷🏾♂️
The cop was A. Off Duty
B. With a known gangster
C. He left the gun at the scene and no prints could be lifted
The Bocchicio man might've been a real hero. In his way.
Rest in peace. ✨
It's interesting, but it would have affected the pacing. The book is a good read for anyone interested in those kind of details.
How long was Micheal in Sicily?
I think it would be quite simple. The newspaper friends that the family had expose the corruption did their job and the PD could have just turned a blind eye to keep their skeletons in the closet. He went to Sicily to escape retaliation from the other families not necessarily an arrest. His guardians were to protect him from killing, not arrest. And why would the police go after him after he came home? The family already showed that they could get to the police and end them.
Anyways, it was laid out simply before the killing. Run the stories to expose the corruption and keep the police calm.
I think there are so many unanswered questions and to answer them turns a film into a documentry or makes it an 8 hour epic. Maybe a scene like Michael takes a train ride and it drifts into Vitos early days to explain his return.
The only reason why Sollozzo try to assassinate the Don was because Sonny was for Sollozzo deal. That’s why Vito said on the lines in the book of movie. “ don’t let anybody outside the family know what your thinking” a second piece of evidence was when Tom said “ It was nothing personal only business “
I need to get these books, I wanna read everything and find everything that is not in the movies
Being it’s one of the top 10 best films ever by every list I ever saw and number 1, 2 or 3 on most lists…I’d say it’s probably fine as it is. 😝
Hello!
The movie was already long, adding that extra element would’ve made it even longer. Simply put, you would then have to explain the family, what they do and why they have that reputation. It’s not just about someone copping to the murders, there would have to be more set-up for all that to happen
It is no mystery at all.
The book explained that another man (who belonged to another family and who was going to die) took the blame for the murder. The Corleone family took care of his family.
Bro the heads of paramount wanted to make cuts & put all the sense back in yes it would’ve made the movie even greater!
What ever happened to the man that just ran off before appleonia was murdered by the car blowing up?
In my experience the Directors cut are not as good as the cut that goes out because often the directors think every scene is a gem and needs to be in the story. A great editor is a directors best friend.
They definitely should of at least hinted to thst
After several years, the five families agreeing on the drug trade, and a lot of hush money, plus they do mention that the family has people in the press who can work the angle. They probably made the charges disappear.
Why wasn't Michael arrested? Well, wasn't it the point Don Vito made in the meeting with all 5 families to bring Michael back safely from Sicily? Of course Don had a different cause but making sure that Michael will return unharmed is definitely a goal of his too. So the way the movie portrays is Michael can return because Vito Corleone has enough politicians 'in his pockets' and other gang leaders will not go after Michael for Solozzo, Corleone family also directed the attention of the killer to McClusky himself by making the newspapers print all sorts of stories about him.
The movie is confusing at certain parts. They wanted to shorten the movie. It would have been better to break it up in two parts. There is so much to the Godfather and the other books that are left out of the movies.
That hostage concept might work on paper, but consider this. A smart mobster from one of the other families who knew of Michael's meeting with Solozzo & McCluskey could arrange their own hit on all three of them in the restaurant, or even in the car. The hostage for hire clan would then take revenge on the Corleone family for killing their guy as required, and it would be an all out war.
This has bothered me since I first saw the movie. Unless Vito paid off every cop or captain, how the hell did they not Search for him.
If anything involving the Bocchichio Family was inserted into the movie, it could have been Michael, upon being made Underboss of the family, would have been told by Vito to ensure that those members of the family be taken care of.
I really should read the book...Not so much because I want to, but I need to to understand the movie better. The entire McClusky/Sollozzo assassination thing bothers me for many reasons: If they could plant a gun, why not have a couple button men assigned to do the dirty deed rather than M.C.? How did M.C. manage to get out of the restaurant after the shooting with maybe a 50/50 chance of making it? Why hide it Sicily, where the enemy had tons of infrastructure to go after M.C.? Mexico or lots of places would have been better. It just seems not all that well thought-out.
The movie is a classic without the information.
Some details had to be cut as the movie is long enough. This storyline wouldn’t have added anything to the story.
Not logical. If someone confessed and was executed for the murder, Why would Senators bring up the murder of the police captain years later?