Michael Corleone from The Godfather as a Tragic Hero - Research Paper Example

Michael Corleone as Tragic Hero In Aristotles “Poetics,” a tragic hero is described as “a man not preeminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is brought upon him not by vice and depravity but by some error of judgment.” (Aristotle, 1981, p. 218). Aristotle stated that there must be a reversal of fortune from happiness to misery, and that this fall from grace must be brought upon the hero by an error, not because of a moral failing. The emotions that are to be aroused in the audience are that of pity and fear, such that the mere telling of the story would be enough to arouse these emotions in the audience.(Aristotle, 1981, pp. 219-224). The deeds and consequences that evoke pity and fear are events that the tragic hero did not deserve – the punishment did not fit the crime – and the recognition by the audience that the hero is much like themselves. The former provokes pity, the latter provokes fear. (Golden, 1968, p. 22). The tragic deed that brings upon the heros downfall should also be done to a family member, as if the parties are enemies or indifferent to one another, there is no reason for pity or fear for the hero. The tragic hero himself must be good, appropriate, realistic and consistent. Moreover, there must be a discovery that the tragic hero makes that brings about his downfall. (Aristotle, 1981, pp. 219-224). He should also be a person of stature, who enjoys “great reputation and prosperity.” (Aristotle, 1981, p. 218). An example of a classical Greek tragic hero is Oedipus, who marries his mother and slays his father, although Oedipus is unaware that these events transpired, as he left his home as a young boy and did not know his mother or father. His tragic flaw is one of hubris – he believed that he could change his fate, a fate that was foretold when he was very young. By attempting to change his fate, which compelled him to leave home, he brought about the very tragedy that he was trying to avoid by leaving home in the first place. (McKinney, 2010, p. 1). The question is whether Michael Corleone is a tragic hero, according to Aristotles definition. When we begin the Godfather saga, both in the film and the book, Michael is a bit of an innocent. This is shown by the fact that he was in uniform, obviously serving his country, therefore is not an active part of the family business, and by a story that he tells to Kay. In this story, he tells of a man, Les Halley, who refused to let Johnny Fontane, a well-known singer, out of his contract. Michael Corleones father, Don Vito Corleone, put a gun to Halleys head and said that either his signature would be on the contract or his brains would. This story was told in both the book and the movie, and in the movie, Michael tells Kay after relating this story that this was his family – it wasnt him. (Godfather Part I; Puzo, 1969, p. 42). In this way, the director of The Godfather movie, Francis Ford Coppola sets up Michaels character as somebody who, although was a son of Vito Corleone, was not a part of the underworld activities of his father, although he was also not ashamed. (Godfather Part I). In the book, this relationship Michael had with his father and his business was more fleshed out. It was revealed that he was a war hero, who was featured in Life magazine, and that he joined The Marines in defiance of his father, then went on to Darthmouth College without telling anybody. (Puzo, 1969, pp. 17-18). Michael does not get involved with the violence inherent in the family business until his father gets shot. In the book, Michael still does not want to get involved with the business, even after the Don was shot, as the Don did not die - “He was glad that he was not truly a part of all this, that now his father lived he did not have to involve himself in vengeance. Hed help out, answering the phone, running errands and messages. Sonny and the old man could take care of themselves...”(Puzo, 1969, p. 94). This was made clear in the book, less clear in the movie. (The Godfather Part I). Michael thus far fits some of the characteristics of the tragic hero. Although he himself was not a man of stature, his father was, as he was one of the most powerful and respected Godfathers in New York City, and people all over turned to Don Vito for help. Michaels own reputation had not yet been burnished, as he was a fledgling, fresh out of the military and college. So, at least at the beginning of the tale, Michael did not entirely fit the characteristic of being a many who enjoys “great reputation and prosperity.” However, there are other aspects that Michael does fill. He was shown as a man of good moral character. When Don Corleone told Michael early on that he had some plans that Michael would like, and Michael did not say anything, Don “grunted in exasperation. I know how you are. I wont ask you to do anything you dont approve of.” (Puzo, 1969, p. 44). This implies that Michael is moral, too moral for a dirty job that may be given by The Don. Also, Michael fought for his country in World War II – this is generally known as a sign of virtue, as he voluntarily performed a patriotic duty and risked his life to do so. Moreover, it is clear that he is not a part of the family business, nor does he want to be a part of the business. It is unclear if he has this stance because of morality or simply because he finds the business distasteful and does not want to get his hands dirty, but the fact is that he chooses not to involve himself in the violence and crime perpetuated by his family. Michael was also shown to be happy in the beginning of the book, despite the violence that is constantly going on around him. He managed to shut out the dark parts of his family tree by staying detached, aloof – traits that are not exactly noble and virtuous, but helped him survive and remain content. He planned on marrying Kay, cutting ties with his family, finishing college and maybe become a mathematics professor. (Puzo, 1969, pp. 76-77). Michael was semi-conflicted in his detachment and plans, for the book stated that he felt “guilty” for cutting ties with his family, and guilty for having a good time with Kay while his father lay near-death, even though he did not know that his father was near-death at the time. (Puzop, 1969, pp. 76-77). So, Michael the protagonist is set up as a tragic hero – he is good, but not too good, as he is detached from the violence instead of abhorring it as a truly virtuous man might do. He is appropriate, in that he acts appropriately for a son who is born into a violent family by not participating in the violence himself. He is realistic and somebody that the audience can identify with – he could easily be a brother, son or friend to any one of the audience with his realistic character. And he acted consistent – even after his father was shot, he still did not want to get involved with the violence. The turning point for his character was he was hit by the chief of police while at the hospital visiting his father, and ended up in the hospital. (Puzo, 1969, p. 130). Michael, then and only then, decided to resort to violence ostensibly to protect his father from further violence, but this motive is in question because it was shown earlier that Michael still did not want to get involved in violence even after his father was shot. Therefore, it would seem that Michaels turning point came because of a personal slight, which takes all sense of nobility and virtue out of his act. Thus, the act of killing the police chief and Sollozzo would seem to be an error in judgment on Michaels part, a great error in judgment. He didnt do it to protect his loved ones, he did because his pride was hurt, and to do an act as serious as cold-blooded murder for that reason is an error in judgment and an act of hubris, because his overwhelming pride is what caused him to do the act. Michaels downfall begins with the act of killing the police chief and Sollozzo. (Puzo, 1969, p. 150-152). This leads him to Sicily for several years. It also seemed to change him internally. For instance, prior to the killing of the police chief and Sollozzo at the Italian Restaurant, he was in love with Kay and intended to marry her. However, once in Sicily, he seemed to completely forget about Kay as he falls in love with a Sicilian girl and marries her. (Puzo, 1969, p. 343). This ends tragically for Michael, as the girl is killed in an explosion meant for him. (Puzo, 1969, pp. 352-353). The killing of the police chief and Sollozzo thus sets off a chain reaction that embedded Michael deeper and deeper into the violent underworld. First, his Sicilian wife is killed. Then he sets up the murder of his own brother-in-law Carlo to avenge the death of his brother, Sonny, who was killed because Carlo fingered him to the Barzini family, another powerful mafia family who wanted Sonny dead so that they could deal with Vito, who was known to be more fair-minded than Sonny. (Puzo, 1969, p. 435). Then he sets up a whole string of other murders of people who were involved in the other five families who were vying for control of the underworld, and his transformation to Don was complete, as shown by the last scene in the first movie where people were coming to Michael for help while Kay watches helplessly. (The Godfather Part I). Thus far, Michael Corleone is not yet a tragic figure, although the events above led to his eventual downfall. At the end of the book and the first movie, Michael had changed from a fresh-faced innocent to a ruthless mafia boss, more ruthless than his father had ever been. Yet, aside from the murder of his Sicilian bride, his life was not yet changed from good to bad. He still had his family, Kay and his children, and the killings that he ordered do not touch him personally. This changed in the second movie. Fredo, jealous that Michael was promoted to Don over him, secretly helping Hyman Roth, who was behind an assassination attempt on Michael towards the beginning of the second film. Michael makes this discovery when Fredo gets drunk and admits to knowing Johnny Ola, and associate of Roth, when he previously pretended not to know Ola. Because Fredo was conspiring with enemies of the family, Michael has him killed. (Godfather Part II). Also, in the second film, Kay and Michael break up because of she aborted his child, as she did not want to bring another child into a family headed by the ruthless killer that Michael had become. (Godfather Part II). Finally, in the third film, Michaels tragic downfall is complete. He no longer had a marriage or a family, because Kay had long since left him and taken the children. He is still wracked with guilt over ordering Fredos murder. And, towards the end of the movie, his only daughter, Mary, is killed by a bullet meant for him. He dies at the end of that movie, broken and alone. (Godfather Part III). Michael thus completes the journey of the tragic hero. He starts out a good man, but not entirely noble, as his distaste for the “family business” seemed based more on detachment than a sense of moral outrage, yet he did try to stay out of the violence. He was happy in his life – planning to marry Kay, stay out of the business and finish college. However, his fortunes reversed because of a punch that landed him in the hospital. That act by the police chief sent Michael into the spiral that ended with his own brother being killed by his order, his first wife being blown up, his second wife leaving him after aborting his child, his daughter being killed, and him dying old and alone. It was a tragic error that led Michael down the path to violence, as he should have literally turned the other cheek when he was struck by the police chief. Instead he committed acts of violence that sealed his fate. Did the punishments that Michael receive fit his crimes? Perhaps, as Michael showed that he was ruthless. However, he lost everything – his brothers, his father, eventually his mother, his Sicilian wife, Kay and his children. Everybody he loved was killed or died a natural death, except for his sister Connie, and it was never shown that Connie and Michael were very close. The worst part is is that Michael had a hand in all of the above except the death of his brother Sonny, the death of his father and his mother. Michael is a pitiable character as he started out good and wanting nothing to do with the business, and he ended up broken and alone, a victim of his own ruthless violence. Thus, his fortunes reversed from happiness to abject misery, a misery that culminated in the death of his only daughter. Moreover, the tragic deed that really began the downfall of Michael, the deed that changed him from a ruthless mafia boss to the broken man he was in the third movie, was the murder of his brother Fredo at his own command. This thus fulfills another tenet of Aristotles tragic hero definition, that the tragic deed that brings about the heros downfall should be brought against a family member. Michael Corleone therefore fits the definition of a tragic hero – his misfortune was brought upon by an error in judgment, his fall from grace was because of a moral failing, the punishment did not fit the crime, he started out a man who was very much an everyman aside from his unique circumstances, and the tragic deed that sealed his fate was delivered against a beloved family member, after his discovery that this family member betrayed him. SOURCES USED Aristotle (1981). On Poetics. Franklin Center, PA: The Franklin Library. Coppolla, F. (Director) (1972). The Godfather [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures. Coppolla, F. (Director) (1974). The Godfather Part II [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures. Coppolla, F. (Director) (1990). The Godfather Part III [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures. Golden, L. & Hardison, O.B. (1968). Aristotles Poetics: A Translation and Commentary for Students of Literature. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Puzo, M. (1969). The Godfather. New York, NY: G.P. Putnams Sons. Read More