"You have to answer for Santino, Carlo"

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but doesn't it seem awfully convenient how Carlo is guilty for setting up Santino for assassination?

I know this thread is for the film, but I'm going to morph both here for a moment. In the novel, after Carlo beats up Connie, Carlo lays down to take a nap. He doesn't call anybody to alert them that he just did the job on his wife, and that Sonny might be coming over.

In the film, it shows Carlo beating her up, and then it cuts to showing Connie calling home. No mention of Carlo alerting the Barzini people.

This was in Carlo's nature, to beat his wife. He took out all his Corleone frustrations on the one person he could take it out on - not the Godfather himself would interfere between a husband and wife's quarrels.

After Sonny died, Carlo laid off altogether - out of guilt, out of fear, essentially because Sonny got clipped coming over to see Connie after the beating. If Carlo hadn't beat up his wife, Sonny never would have been clipped.

But I never saw the connection as to how Carlo set up Sonny. Its never mentioned in neither the book nor the movie.

Wow, you could pull the wool over my eyes, but not a Corleone's eyes, that's for sure.

MICHAEL :"Now who approached you? Tattaglia or Barzini?"


CARLO: "It was Barzini"

And before that

SONNY: You touch my sister again and I'll kill ya.

Right, all true, but nobody knew when Carlo would "touch" his sister again. Carlo never alerted anybody - now unless the Barzini's had Carlo's wire tapped, then they knew because Connie called the Corleone compound.

But in neither the book nor the movie, guilt towards Carlo is never implied - not until the final scene.

The first time you saw The Godfather, you knew that was going to happen? I didn't. I thought it was just coincidence. Carlo was gonna beat her anyway - it was in his nature - and eventually Sonny would leave the compound; guess Barzini figured it would only be a matter of time?

I think Carlo would have been murdered anyway, whether he blurted out the admission or not. But Michael wanted to hear it for himself, because even he probably found it smelled a lot like coincidence.

(Bah - Godfather III should have had Victor of Michael Rizzi rise up in vengenance for their slain father. Woulda made a better picture, and this doesn't belong on this thread.)

I believe in the book there is something about Carlo knowing that he was blamed for Sonny's death. But anyway, in the movie, when Connie finds out that Carlo is dead and goes on her tirade against Michael, she screams "

Michael! You lousy bastard -- you killed my husband! You waited until Papa died so nobody could stop you, and then you killed him. You blamed him for Sonny -- you always did. Everybody did

That alone tells me that guilt WAS implied.

Right. But not until the very end of the film.

Now tell me something. What excitement would there have been if we actually saw Carlo make a deal with Barzini's people or call them up after beating his wife?

I believe that FFC's whole premise was to make the viewer feel the uncertainty about Carlo setting up Sonny just as Michael felt that uncertainty. While we know deep down as well as Michael knows deep down that Carlo set up Sonny, there was still a slight window of doubt because no one could coroborate that Carlo was guilty. That is why Michael had to make him confess. Watch Michael's face once Carlo admits that he set up his brother. A combination of disgust, sickness and an I knew it all along look comes over Michael. Up until that point we can see that Michael is still a bit unsure himself. Then the confession, and that cold classic Michael look appears.

Sure, Carlo beat Connie because he just was a scumbag. At least, that was the only reason in the beginning. He beat her, Sonny saw her, and then PUBLICLY lost his famous temper when he beat Carlo in the street. That was how Barzini knew that if Carlo did it again, Sonny would again fly into a rage and leave the compound and his bodyguards.

The day of Sonny's death, Barzini's people made SURE that Connie would start a fight with Carlo. They had the girl call his house, Carlo made her cook and then refused to eat, causing her to break all the dishes, etc. and start a fight with him. Then, after Carlo beat her, he made sure that she had the opportunity to contact the compound. That's how they knew.

Exactly. Then if it didn't work out, they could always try it again.

Yes- how can we ever forget that Michael Look..

The novel says that a "hanger-on" in the Tattaglia family witnessed Sonny beating up Carlo for beating Connie the first time. He reported it to his higher-ups, which set the entire betrayal in motion. The first time was Carlo being violent with his wife. The second time was Carlo in the pay of Tattaglia and Barzini.
It doesn't take much imagination to see what happened:

Carlo, unhappy in his marriage and in his position in the family. He beats Connie (a crime of "passion" ). Tattaglia guy, a bettor in Carlo's storefront, witnesses Sonny retaliating against Carlo. He reports it. Higher-ups correctly assume that a) Carlo has a grudge against Sonny for beating him up in public; b) Sonny, already famous for his uncontrollable temper, has already thrown caution to the wind in charging down on Carlo on a public street during the height of the Five Families War of 1946--and will likely do it again with similar provocation; c) therefore, contact Carlo and get him to beat up Connie again--this time when Tattaglia and Barzini have set up their guys to ambush Sonny on his way to "rescue" Connie or mete out "justice" to Carlo.

Michael needed to hear it himself. If you remember in the novel, in that very scene, it was implied that Michael could never be the man his father was, because Vito wouldn't have needed to hear an admission. What he knew in his heart would have been enough.

And yet Michael was only doing what his father couldn't bring himself to do - kill his daughter's husband and the father of his grandchildren. Although Vito wanted and needed to avenge Sonny's death, he didn't have it in his heart to actually murder Carlo (although he could apparently plan it) and hurt Connie. He left this unpleasant task to the far more ruthless Michael.

The novel also says that Carlo, after initially talking to Tom Hagen after Sonny's death, realized that he was an inch away from losing his life.

Well, maybe Vito couldn't kill the father of his grandchildren. Or maybe he had bigger fish to fry. Remember, he forswears vengeance for Sonny as part of his plan to:

1)End the war
2)Smoke out his true enemy
3)Arrange Michael's safe return

and, down the line,

4) Demonstrate the "weakness" of the Corleone family

Leaving Carlo alive made Vito seem both sincere and weak to the other dons, helping set in motion the series of events culminating in the assassinations of the heads of the Five Families.

Although allowing Carlo to live may have had a dual purpose, I believe that it was also something that Vito could never have brought himself to do.

I don't know if I agree with that SB. After all Carlo was not blood and he was responsible for the death of Vito's son.

If Vito was unable to bring himself to do that for the reason's that you've given, then he would never have approved or have been a part of Michael's plot for getting revenge.

Getting back to the novel for a moment, Michael even tells Hagen, after Vito's demise, something to the effect that he never realized how smart and calculating their father really was until they hatched the plan for revenge.

Vito was an integril part of the plan for vengence.

I am not so sure.

Vito was definitely in on Michael's ruse when he announced to the entire inner circle that Carlo was going to be his "right hand man in Vegas (No wonder Tessio's betrayal was the 'smart thing to do' if he believed such a lightweight would be Michael's right hand man he would rightly conclude that Michael would be a terrible Don)."

As Carlo leaves the room he hugs Vito and says "thank you papa" as if Vito had put him in this position of power.

This scene shows Michael and Vito working together to "keep their enemies closer" and it implies that Vito knew and approved of what Michael had in mind for Carlo.

In this vein does anyone know whether it is in the old Sicilian tradition to take vengence on someone who dishonors a daughter as much as Carlo did?

Oh, I agree that he wanted revenge, and I agree that he would probably wanted to wrap his hands around Carlo's neck himself. However, like any father, I don't think he could bring himself to hurt Connie that way. I think that Michael agreed to take that burden from his father's shoulders.

Maybe, maybe not.

But it goes farther than that. It is an old sicilian tradition to take vengance on someone who is responsible for the murder of your loved ones. Young Vito showed us that in GFII.

I totally disagree.

The only reason that Michael took the burden was because Vito swore that he would never be the one to break the peace. Avenging Sonny's death was most definitely a part of Vito's plan.

I don't think so either SB, because as a father of his age, and from his time and tradition, he would not be hurting Connie by killing Carlo, he would be protecting her from further harm, and in a way restoring her honor as an innocent widow. Obviously he would have make all kinds of arrangements to see that she had plenty of money for herself and her kids. He also would have seen to it that she would stay on the straight and narrow and not run around like she did with Vito dead, and Michael in charge.

It would have been easier for Michael to avenge Santino because Michael was away in Sicily all these years, and never really sat down to dinner with Carlo. It was always Vito, Mama, Santino, Tom, Connie, Carlo, and the kids at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A real affection was there, you don't break bread with someone you have meals with every day for years and years and then cold-bloodedly kill them. That was Vito's problem.

I also noticed that Mama Corleone and Carlo had a very deep relationship. During the wedding sequence, when Johnny Fontaine starts to sing, you can see Carlo and Mama holding hands. Almost like they were the newlyweds. (It was real, and doubt it was intentional for the film - I think it was Morgana King and Giavani Russo holding hands, not Carlo Rizzi and Mama Corleone, but it was shot in the film regardless.)

Michael was always detatched from family functions, and then he was exiled to Sicily for many years, so killing Carlo probably wasn't that hard for him to do.

It wasn't hard for Michael to order the death of anyone, especially Carlo. Put yourself in his shoes - Carlo assists in the murder of your brother by throwing in with the people who tried to murder your father. I doubt he struggled with it at all. I know I wouldn't have.

The novel makes clear that Vito just could not bring himself to do what, ultimately, he knew he should do.

Yeah, Michael wouldnt care about breaking bread with people and then whacking them. Look at Tessio, Fredo and Roth.

Your boy Barzini is dead. (Carlo should have known that if Barzini was dead that he was a mere pebble that would be killed too) but he is upset and isnt thinking straight.... so....

Michael messes with his head... manipulates him with...

"Come on Carlo, I am godfather to your son"
"You think I would make my sister a widow"
"there is a car waiting to take you to the airport... "Tom, tickets"
"drink, drink"

Now who was it that approached you?

BRILLIANT!!

You remember that Connie received a phone call. That was set up in advance. Then Carlo would beat Connie, who would seek help from her brother. Then the car coming to Connie's was surely Sonny's car!
This is what I think.

The line "You think that could have fooled a Corleone" makes me curious. It obviously fooled Sonny, because he fell for it. Is Michael implying he thinks he's smarter then Sonny because he figured it out and he didn't.

Not really, Beth. Vito wasn't fooled by Csrlo and told Tom to make sure he never got anything important within the family. Sonny never gave him anything important and mocked him at the dinner table and was admonished by his mother not to interfere. He also beat the crap out of Carlo when he found her all bruised, and told Carlo he would kill him if he ever touched his sister again.

What Michael was saying that the little farce he played with his sister couldn't fool a Corleone, and it didn't. Sonny's only mistake was to lose his temper and go off half cocked once he learned Carlo had touched his sister again.

Interesting point! But I think Michael was just trying to get Carlo to cut the BS and make his confession, as if to say, "It's all over now." I doubt Michael was thinking about Sonny then.

GOOD POINT TB! To add... Michael wanted to put into Carlo's mind that Michael was offended by Carlo trying to fool him. Therefore, psychologically, Carlo believes that he must go ahead and confess (what Mike already knows) or his fate will be worse.

Sonny probably never let the thought of a set up enter his mind after he got a call from Connie. His temper took over all normal thought process and all he had on his mind was taking care of Carlo. It was more anger clouding Sonny's thinking than anything else. If he hadn't been hot tempered, he may have seen the set-up all along, had the novel allowed it.
Barzini knew Sonny would be a threat but never thought that Mike would be because up to the point where Mike comes back from Sicily, he's not involved in the business. Only Sonny and Fredo - " well to a point where Vito let him be involved because Fredo, well Fredo you know."
Mike probably knew that Vito did not want Carlo involved in the family business, I know its not in the movie, but like some of the plot dead spots we assume that certain things were filled in due to the movie progression. Mike knew at the meeting where we first see Neri as Mike's enforcer. When Tessio and Clemenza asking for their own families, when Mike told Carlo that Carlo would be his right hand man in Vegas, he already had Carlo lined up to get whacked. He was setting Carlo up, he already had his demise set up, just had to pick the right time.
He was still waiting to see who else would betray him. As Tom asked Mike right before this scene ended, Tom asked Mike - Why am I out, why does Neri report directly to you, he asks about Rocco building a secret regime. Mike asks him how he knows this. Tom says that some of his men are to good for their job, that they are getting more than the jobs worth.
Keep in mind, this is the first scene after Mike talks to Kay and Mike tells Kay that he has been back for more than a year. So there in theory, there is a year missing from the movie that Mike has been in charge of the family and been plotting and planning making decisions.
Mike had to let the pieces fall into place between this point and the move to Nevada. I believe then and I belive that now that Mike knew Clemenza would not betray the family.

I always got the impression, from that scene, that although Michael knew that Carlo had set up Sonny, he wasn't 100% sure. It was almost as though Michael wanted to HEAR Carlo say that he did it to be 100% sure that he was doing the right thing by killing Carlo. That his suspicions were now 100% confirmed.

Who else was in the room when Carlo confessed?

Weren't Neri, Rocco and Tom present?

Yes, I think so, and I think it was a way Michael could sheild himself for killing his brother in law....he had all those witnesses to the confession. I think this plays in the novel where Tom and Kay talk about Michael's business.

You've confused me here Don T. How would Carlo's confessing in front of the others shield Michael?

Shield is probably the wrong word. Michael knew there would be blowback from Connie, possibly Kay and possibly Mamma Corleone for killing a family member. While Connie and Kay openly brought it up, Mamma never would have, however with all of those people being privy to Carlo's confession they were all in a position to say that they knew for sure Carlo was the one who set Sonny up for death.

Hmmmm. I don't know about that Don T. I just cannot see Connie and Kay confronting Michael and then Michael having Neri and Rocco confirm to them that Carlo confessed to setting up Sonny.

Well, while I agree with you, that Micheal wanted to HEAR Carlo say that he did it, I don't believe it was "to be 100% sure that he was doing the right thing by killing Carlo". I believe his assessment was enough for that. I believe that Michael just wanted to feed his ego.

The novel says that the others in the room were "astonished" that Michael asked Carlo about his guilt when it was plain that Carlo was guilty. Puzo wrote that they thought this proved that Michael was "not yet the man his father was."
I had another view: Michael, by making Carlo confess and giving him a phony reason for hope, may simultaneously have been trying to prove a point to Tom, etc., that he could be quietly forceful (as well as ordering violence), and be avoiding a possibly messy scene in the Mall (where his wife sleeps, where his children play with their toys) by conning Carlo peacefully into the car to be garrotted.

Michael's conversation with Carlo is reminiscent of Vito's with Bonasera. In both cases, the outcome could have more easily been yes or no. But Vito was a master at busting chops in a polite seemingly benign way. Michael had that trait also. He didn't have to get Carlo to confess - his mind was already made up. But it was just part of his personaiity to do so. Just like in the novel when he puts Jules through his paces when Jules tryies to tell Michael that there could be no strings attached. Michael tells him that his string is friendship and Jules can refuse it if he wants to. That wasn't necessary, but Michael seems to revel in tormenting people to some extent.

Apt analogy in both cases. Contrast Jules' reaction (embarrassed, grateful) with Moe Green's ("f**k off"). And contrast the results.

By the same token, contrast Bonasera's reaction (acceptance) with Woltz's reaction to Vito's offer of friendship (rejection)--and the results.

I hate to resurrect this, after all the great responses. They all make sense, so I hate to beat a dead horse, but...

I was watching this again on Bravo last night, and a thought occurred to me. I remember watching Mystic River, and Sean Penn's character was trying to make the Tim Robbins character "admit what he did," and Penn would allow Robbins to live. Robbins, after seeing that "the truth" wasn't going to cut any mustard, admitted to what he didn't do, hoping for the chance to live.

Is it possible that Carlo was doing the same thing?

Exactly. The pre-arranged phone call is the key move for setting the hit in motion.

But the novel is also very clear about why Michael wanted an explicit confession from Carlo:

"Michael was still not confident of his right, still feared being unjust, still worried about the fraction of an uncertainty that only a confession by Carlo Rizzi could erase" (p. 436).

True, I have no doubt whatsoever that Santino's enemies would set up a hit this way. They were counting on Carlo to lose his temper and beat the crap out of Connie.

But isn't it possible that the organization of the hit was done without Carlo being willingly involved?

I doubt it. He admitted to his role, so it's really a moot point, anyway.

No, it's not at all possible. As was posted earlier, Carlo openly admits that Barzini approached him to set up the hit on Sonny:

Michael: Now who approached you, Tattaglia or Barzini?

Carlo: It was Barzini.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Even granting your theory that Carlo's confession may be a falsehood brought on in a desperate attempt to save his life I don't think it's possible that Carlo wasn't involved.

First of all, how would Barzini's people have such detailed knowledge of Carlo's domestic issues without Carlo providing that information?

Also, the way the hit was set up needed Carlo's involvment. I guess they could have had a random woman call and cancel a non-existant appointment with Carlo, but Carlo really was going out, and leaving right after he told Connie to make him dinner.

This behavior shows that Carlo was involved.

Yep i also agree that Carlo was involved.

Guess I'll make a weak Don, then. I'm a sucker for the pleading and swearing on my children comments.

See, when Vito Corleone says "I swear...on the souls of my grandchildren...that I will not be the one to break the peace we've made here today..."

See-now, one man says it, and you can believe him when he says it. Another man...pah.

I'll take your word on it. Or better yet, Puzo's. Then again, we all know that the books and the films are two different animals...STOP! *slaps self*

Carlo is guilty. Okay.

While I'll never believe that Carlo was not part of the plot, I do appreciate the logic of your reference to Vito's promise. However, to this I would point out the following: the Turk says to Michael in the car, after Michael says he doesn't want his father bothered anymore, that "I swear on my children he won't be." This was a lie, and in the restaurant the Turk admits as much: Michael says he wants a guarantee that there will be no more attempts on his father's life, and the Turks responds, "What guarantees can I give you, Mike?" (In the novel, if I remember correctly, Puzo writes that at that point Michael knew for sure that with this little meeting Sollozzo was just trying to buy time, and that he would try to make another attempt to kill Vito.)

Wow... yeah I remember that movie....

I gotta tell ya though... I thought that Robbins was just flippin' nuts at that point... he may have believed he didnt.. who knows....


as for Carlo... he could have easily said... "no one approached me... I didnt do it..."... INSTEAD... he looks around at the other guys in the room (as to say... ok here it comes).... it was Barzini.... "Hello Carlo"... there goes a perfectly good windshield

Mike scared Carlo into submitting.

I want to know HOW IN THE WORLD did Carlo think he was gonna live "there is a plane waiting for you"... "I bought you a ticket even though you set up Sonny to be killed"

I laugh my ass off when I see him get in the car and Clemenza says "hello carlo"

False hope, cunning on Michael's part, that's how.

"Come on. Don't be afraid, Carlo -- Come on, you think I'd make my sister a widow? I'm Godfather to your son, Carlo --No -- Carlo -- you're out of the Family business, that's your punishment. You're finished. I'm putting you on a plane to Vegas -- "
And he even goes as far as presenting a plane ticket to him.

Cool, cunning and calculative Michael at his best.

.

Yeah... I was almost complimenting Michael's cunning more than questioning it.... MC at his best