写都写了不泼白不泼之 ---- 马基雅维利式的教父

        
                                                       The Machiavellian Godfathers

       There are few other films that embody the theories of Machiavelli as well as The Godfather series. However, the conducts of the two Dons, Vito and Michael, are markedly different. Being in very different circumstances, they are both successful at running the mafia family, but troubles do not spare them. Who makes a better Don according to Machiavelli? What are their strengths and weaknesses? These questions can only be answered when we take a closer look at these incredibly complex characters.

The Case of Vito Corleone
        Vito Corleone is what Machiavelli would call a Prince who acquires his state “with his own arms and by merit.” As an orphan arriving in America all by himself, he truly has nothing. He has everything against him in building his own empire, most of all Don Fanucci. Machiavelli probably would not regard Fanucci highly. While he is successful in establishing himself as the “protector” of the neighborhood, his position is ever volatile. In his first scene, he is shown demanding protection fees by threatening to cut one of his subject’s daughter’s face. While Machiavelli thinks a Prince should be feared, he should “do his upmost to escape hatred”(45). And the easiest way to provoke hatred is by “meddl[ing] with the property or with the women of his citizens”(44). When Fanucci puts a knife on his subject’s daughter, to which Vito witnesses, even though he gets his payment, he cannot escape the hatred that ensues.
        Of course, if fortune had flown Fanucci’s way, someone like Vito would never have appeared and the neighborhood would still be paying their fees. But Machiavelli says that if you depend on fortune, you have already lost(66). Vito did what the rest did not even dare to think and killed Fanucci. However, before we applaud Vito for his bravery, we need to recognize one fact —— he could not have done it without Clemenza’s guns. Machiavelli puts it bluntly, “All armed prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed prophets have been destroyed”(14). It is the gun and his valor combined that brought him to success.
        Vito did what the people wanted to see, which helps him earn respect quickly. But as a nobody, he needs to build his reputation. In a classic Machiavellian fashion, he gives a landlord extra money to stop him from evicting a widow friend. What he gave the landlord may not be much, but by showing that he is willing to pay the extra money, he impresses the landlord. And after he tells the landlord to “ask his friends in the neighborhood about him,” the landlord quickly comes back to return the money and show his respect for Vito. For Machiavelli, liberality is only useful with the reputation for it, and Vito understands that for him to get a footing in his neighborhood, he needs to build a respectable reputation for it.
         From this very beginning, we can see Vito’s conduct reflects another Machiavellian theory —— You are either a “stanch friend or a thorough foe”(60). The opening scene of the first Godfather right away reveals that Vito bases his business on friendship, not on money. In fact, when Bonasera offered money to have someone murdered, Vito says, “What have I done to make you treat me so disrespectfully?” It is clear that Vito understands that basing anything off of money, such as the mercenary troops in Machiavelli’s theory, always end up in failure(37). Only friendship and loyalty provide the solid base that a Prince can sit securely on.
          Vito Corleone walks the fine line between cruelty and clemency. His famous line is, “I will make an offer he cannot refuse.” This is a civil way of saying, I will put a gun on his head until he says yes. He knows how to provoke fear by leaving a horse’s head on his foe’s bed. However, his kindness is also clearly shown when he accepts all the favors he has been asked at his daughter’s wedding out of his friendship with the subjects. He seems like the classic Machiavel, walking the fine line between being loved and feared.
         But as the film progresses, it is clear that he has his weakness, too. His weakness is his children, all shaping up in different ways that are problematic for Vito. The biggest problem is clearly Sonny, a classic non-Machiavel, constantly letting his emotions getting the best of him and rarely listening to what other people have to say. In Machiavellian terms, Sonny is all lion and no fox. He always seeks the most direct solution possible for the problem, unaware, literally, of the possible ambushes along the way. But since he is Vito’s son, after all, Vito does not just simply give up on him. Vito trains Sonny with all his hope, but as Machiavelli points out, a man’s nature is not easily changed. Vito lets his love and hope for his son get in the way of business, which causes a series of disaster. And following Sonny’s death, he hastes to make peace with the other mafia families, leaving many hidden risks for his successor, Michael Corleone, to take care of.
        It is an interesting case that Machiavelli does not touch on familial ties very much in The Prince, despite its obvious importance in hereditary Princedoms. He argues at the very beginning that hereditary Princes have the easiest jobs, as long as they do not “depart from the usages of his ancestors”(1). It is, however, an understatement as seen in numerous cases throughout history and in the Godfather films. How often does a hereditary prince completely follow the policies of his father? Not often. In another film Elizabeth, we can clearly see just how different family members can be and how internal family drama could cause chaos in a hereditary state. The Tudors are just but one example in history of brothers and sisters competing for the crown, waging mayhem upon one another. This is something that Machiavelli glances over in his book but is an important component in governing Princedoms. The same family drama would occur over and over again amongst Corleone brothers and sisters, with the death of Sonny being just the beginning of it.
         Vito Corleone, a classic Machiavel all-around, loses as he invests too much in his family. While it is clearly his weakness, the question is, should he be blamed for that? In one of Vito’s final scenes, he claims that he “does not apologize for taking care of his family.” Because for him, family comes before business, and he would do anything if he could get his family not involved in the business. This is perhaps not a desirable quality as a Machiavellian Prince. But is the price worth paying? Michael Corleone has a very different answer to this question.

The Case of Michael Corleone
       Michael is in many ways similar to Vito, but his conduct is different from Vito’s in some key areas. Michael is more Machiavellian than Vito when it comes to using cruelty due to his ruthlessness in matters. And when it comes to the question of family versus business, Michael has a more nuanced view on it and is not hesitant to put business above family. He is obviously the more controversial of the two, but is he more effective as a Don?
       Michael’s roots is very different from Vito’s, he is what Machiavelli would call a “hereditary Prince” and have it much easier than Princes who acquire new states. This is true in the films. Michael never had to go through struggling on the streets or facing poverty. Most of his power and wealth is simply handed to him, as opposed to him making it on his own. But just how easy does Michael have it? From the very beginning, we can tell that it is not that easy. For starters, Machiavelli thinks that a hereditary prince has it easy because all he needs to do is follow the old ways. Michael is a classic example of descendants wanting to break free of the model their ancestors set for them. He does not want to be part of the mafia business, as he joins the Marine Corps and dates a blond American girl, Kay. But as it turns out, it is altogether impossible for him to stay out of his family business as his father gets shot.
       “Dragged into” the nasty business much the way Vito was in his youth, Michael proves he has what it takes to be a Prince when he calmly shoots two of his enemies, in ways reminiscent of Vito’s first killing. As he succeeds as Don, he again wipes out all of the enemies to his family in striking succession. He is clearly embodying two Machiavellian principles here. First, that it is better to be feared than loved(43). As he executes a series of murder, all of his subjects who still doubts his ability as the successor of the family now willingly kisses his hand out of fear. Such an act also gives “striking proofs of his capacity,” which is crucial in consolidating his status as the new Don(59). Second, this move also adheres to the principle that “injuries,…, should be inflicted all at once”(23). Simultaneously killing all of his opponents not only is the most efficient way, it also is essential in the making of a new Princedom. Because only by wiping out all of your old enemies, can a new Prince focus on growing his Princedom in the direction that he wants. And for the new Prince, it is “impossible to escape a name for cruelty”(43). And Michael has proved to be a man who accepts this name because it is necessary.
       However, not all of his killings are necessarily honorable. The most controversial killings would involve his own family members. In the first movie, it is his brother-in-law, and in the second, it is his own brother, Fredo. Are those killings exceeding the limits of what is acceptable from a Prince? For Machiavelli, the answer is no. For a Prince, while his personal conduct may lead to different reputations, he should always seek to escape hatred or contempt. And since in both of these killings, Michael did it for political necessity, he does not become hated by his subjects.
      Michael’s relationship with Fredo has always been a difficult one. When Fredo first sides with Moe Greene in the casino business, Michael warns him that he should never ever side with anyone against the family. However, in the second film, Fredo again sides with Hyman Roth and inadvertently gets involved in a plot on Michael’s life. It is clear that through these incidents, Fredo puts his own interest first ahead of the interest of the family. Machiavelli points out that “when you see a Minister thinking more of himself than of you,…, that man can never be… one that you can trust”(62). Understanding this, Michael is quite conflicted about Fredo. On the one hand, he cannot be trusted, which makes him an enemy. On the other hand, he is family, which is the foundation of the mafia. But knowing that Fredo can either be friend or foe, but never neutral, which Machiavelli argues that only puts you in a disadvantageous position, Michael decides to eliminate his brother.
       Michael’s relationship with Tom Hagen is also worth scrutinizing. Tom has always been consigliere to Vito Corleone. However, as soon as Michael becomes Don, he strips Tom of the title and starts alienating him on certain business matters. According to Machiavelli, a prudent Prince should choose “certain discreet men from among the subjects,” and allow them alone “free leave to speak their minds on any matter on which he asks their opinion, and on none other”(63). Tom is clearly among these few discreet men that Corleone family chooses. However, since Vito has Tom around for every matter in business, Michael here is making sure that Tom knows to only speak when he is asked to. As a Prince should only take counsel “as he himself pleases, and not when it pleases others,” Michael makes it clear that there are times when he does not need Tom’s advice(64). If Tom is truly an apt counselor, he should thoroughly understand this. And it is only after the bedroom attack, that Michael reassures Tom that he fully trusts him. Michael again proves his prudence by not trusting anyone and putting people to tests. Only then can it be revealed who is truly loyal and who is only pleasing the Don for their own benefits.
       Kay provides another interesting case for Michael. She is his sweetheart at the beginning of the first film, but by the end of the film, their relationship drastically changed. Unbeknownst to Kay, Michael has fallen in love with another woman in Sicily and has watched her being killed. When Michael comes back to New York and asks Kay to marry him, one has to wonder if he did it for love or for necessity. He has a very blank expression when he proposes to Kay and he mentions that it is important that they have children. Clearly, as the new Don, Michael needs children to keep his family alive. If this is still just a suspicion at that point, it all becomes clear when Michael loses his temper and hits Kay after she tells him that she had an abortion. Therefore, even the “love” of Michael’s life is nothing but politically necessary. When he shuts the door on her face towards the end of the second film, it is obvious that he never has had any love for her.
         There it is, Michael Corleone, the ultimate Machiavel, who always does what is needed to be done and wipes out, not everyone, but “just his enemies.” By the end of the second film, he has won over everyone and enjoys the full control of his vast gambling mafia empire. But one cannot help but feel that something is missing here. As he sits on an armchair by himself in the forest that is part of his estate, he starts reminiscing about an old family party where he argued with Sonny about his future. This family is, of course, no more, as most of the people in that scene are now dead. When Michael’s mom tells Michael that “you can never lose your family,” Michael replies, “Times are changing.” There is no doubt that while gaining everything else, Michael has lost his family.

Who is the better Don? —— Machiavelli and Nietzsche
       As the analysis shows, both Vito and Michael Corleone use classic Machiavellian strategies as Dons of the mafia family. This is in contrast to some distinctively non-Machiavellian characters in the films. Sonny always gets carried away by his temper, while Fredo has no mind of his own and trusts others way too easily. Even though Vito and Michael have the “prudence” to be Don, they are not without their faults either. These faults manifest themselves in their dealings with family relations. Vito, deeply hurt from the loss of his son, makes peace with the other families, handing the control to Fortune rather than himself. Michael, on the other hand, conflicts with almost all of his close family members and counselors for business, to find himself sitting alone in his estate with no one around. Vito leans towards clemency in times of crisis, while Michael leans towards cruelty.
        According to Machiavelli, Michael is the better Don. He possesses all the essential qualities Machiavelli believes a Prince should have, which includes cruelty on appropriate occasions. He never trusts Fortune and always takes matter into his own hands whenever possible. He is willing to eliminate all potential risks to his mafia group, which includes his own brother. When his wife damages his lineage by having an abortion, he is not reluctant to shut the door on her face as well. He is willing to do anything for the growth and continuation of his mafia group. He stays in control all the time.
      However, Nietzsche is likely to disagree on this verdict. Machiavelli says that it is impossible for a Prince to be endowed with all of the qualities that are reckoned good because “the human condition” does not “allow it”(40). Therefore a Prince should be “discreet enough to know how to avoid the infamy of these vices”(40). This sounds awfully similar to Nietzsche’s idea that a man must overcome himself. But just what part of himself does a man need to overcome? While Machiavelli wanders from greed, to cowardice, then to faithlessness, Nietzsche is able to pinpoint a single source to all of mankind’s vices —— the will to power. Nietzsche argues that “the love of power is the demon of men”(221). For a man to become the “Superman,” he must overcome this passion for power. Even though no man could thoroughly accomplish this feat, it is apparent that Vito is more successful in relinquishing his power when the time calls for it.
       When Vito hands Michael the family business, he asks his capos, “Do you have faith in my judgement? Do I have your loyalty? Then be a friend to Michael, do as he says.” He recognizes that when the moment comes for Michael to take over, he needs to step away from the business completely and unconditionally trust in his son. He is willing to let go of his power so that he can “sow the seeds of good spiritual works” in his final years(233). This is in nowhere mentioned in The Prince, but apparently, there is more to life than just governing one’s Princedom.
       Michael, on the other hand, has never shown any willingness to forgo his power. In fact, everything he does is for consolidating his power. While this is perfectly acceptable in Machiavellian theories, it is the fault of the mankind in Nietzschean theories. Because as we review what Michael has done to get him where it is, we cannot help but wonder, is it all really worth it? Dozens of people have been killed, including his brother and almost all of his counselors. His first wife is murdered while his second wife aborts their child and becomes estranged to him. His children are put in constant danger as various attempts have been made to assassinate him. He almost leads the worst life one can possibly imagine, deprived of familial bonds, love and friendship, yet he is the one to be worshipped.
       This is biggest dilemma The Prince and The Godfather leaves us. It is a puzzle that a person can simultaneously have everything and nothing yet it is clearly what has happened to Michael Corleone. He may exemplify what it is to be a Prince, but he fails to illuminate on what it is to be a person. After all, a Prince is not a Superman; a Prince is just a human being.
         
      
Works Cited:
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. New York: Dover Publications, 1992. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and R. J. Hollingdale. A Nietzsche Reader. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977. Print.
The Godfather. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount Pictures, 1972. Film.
The Godfather: Part II. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount Pictures, 1974. Film.