Would Fredo have done it again?

Apologies if this has been polled before, but I didn't see it. (I searched, honest .) One of the "justifications" (or, as I like to call it, "excuses") I've come across for Michael killing Fredo is that there was a danger that Fredo -- whether because of his gullibility or his jealousy -- would betray Michael again, thus putting his life and his family's life in danger.

I wonder if the majority of us or the minority of us REALLY feel this way. So here's the question that will measure this quantitatively:

If Michael had let Fredo live, do you think that Fredo, either inadvertently or deliberately, would have betrayed him again or otherwise put his life in danger similar to the way he did the first time in GF2?

Fredo would have done it again, and he would have done it intentionally. The depth of resentment, envy, jealousy--the sheer venom--of his outburst in the boathouse makes me think that he'd never be satisfied until his brother was eliminated.
Your question implies that Fredo might have been grateful to Michael for having been spared. Perhaps. But as Puzo said in the novel (in the context of Bonasera getting that call from Hagen re. Sonny's body), gratitude is the shortest-lived of human emotions. That's why Michael never gave an enemy a pass--and he was right.

I dont think Fredo would betray Michael again, But we'll never know.

Well, I don't want to argue with you, but that's not what Pacino said. An extract from an interview:

Oh, I agree with TB. Fredo's little tantrum in the boathouse revealed the depth of his anger and resentment towards Vito for handing the reins to Michael. Because he was incapable of hating his father (not to get to Dr. Phil'ish here), that rage was refocused on his brother. He would always be angry, and that anger would always make him a danger.

No, I don't think Fredo would do it again. For sure, Fredo was rather stupid, but not so stupid that he would failed to realize the gravity of what he had done.

IMO Fredo seemed to being showing genuine remorse in his "you're nothing to me now, Fredo" chat with Michael, despite the anger he showed with his "that's not the way I wanted it" comment.

Sure, he was angry, but he had to realize that that wasn't "the way Pop wanted it" and that Michael's taking over as Don was not Michael's doing.

Or, perhaps, he was too stupid to realize even that.

Also, I think MP and FFC painted a deliberate picture of everyone living happily in Tahoe subsequent to mama's death, in order to reinforce the idea that Michael had, indeed, become a heartless bastard.

So no, i don't think Fredo would have intentionally done anything in the future to betray Michael.

However, stupid as he was, there was always the possibility, and hence the danger, that he would inadvertently done something.

BTW, although Fredo was obviously not killed in the novel, at the end of the book, in the scene where Tom goes to New Hampshire to bring Kay back, he tells her, in speaking about treachery, that

Michael could have forgiven it, but people never forgive themselves and so they (Tessio and Carlo) would always be dangerous.

If you agree with that statement, then Michael was justified in killing Fredo. I do not, however, agree with it.

If you want to argue for revenge as a legitimate justification for Michael killing him, I can't argue against that. If Michael felt he had to have his revenge, even against his own brother, so be it.

But if all he had to worry about was an inadvertant betrayal, I would say that he should have let Fredo live.

I definitely disagree, Plaw. Fredo's anger at the patriarchal (sp??) figure in his life is strong. He resented Vito, and then Michael, for running his life, although we are shown frequent examples of how incapable he is of running it himself (the Moe Greene meeting, Deanna, his slip-up in Cuba). Like many weak men, he is jealous of the power and strength of those he depends on, but doesn't want to put in the work to achieve it. His anger and resentment towards Michael would only grow. As a matter of fact, since he would literally be beholden to Michael for his life, it might even grow exponentially.

IMHO, Fredo showed NO remorse for his act. When Michael tried to explain how he became the Don because that's what Vito wanted, Fredo exploded. That's a very dangerous man for someone in Michael's position to have around.

Well, I don't want to argue with you, but that's not what Pacino said. An extract from an interview:
[/b]
Enzo, I'm interested to know what year that interview is from. Is it from the 70s just after GF2 (in which case you must have a collection of Playboys )? Or is it more recent?

Well, I have to say that Pacino's description of Fredo employs exactly the word I was thinking: harmless. Why? First, because I don't believe that Fredo knowingly conspired to kill Michael. Although Fredo harbours resentment against his brother, his feelings are more complex than total hate. Michael is the closest family that the lonely Fredo has, the only one with whom he can truly form a bond. The scene of their afternoon talk in Havana and their embrace at Mama's funeral show that Fredo needs and longs for that bond. Second, I believe that Fredo was misled by Roth, and that the ensuing devastation that this misplaced trust caused to Fredo's life will forever scar him, preventing him from being so trusting of others' motivations again. I think it will effectively preclude him from being even an inadvertent risk.

I don't believe that Fredo ever wanted Michael out of the way so he could take over as Don for power's sake. The meaning for him lay in being Don with Michael under him: the older brother taking care of the kid brother. Michael was a necessary part of the equation. But since Vito did not make Fredo the Don, at the least Fredo longed for some sort of equality and mutual respect. He experienced that when he and Michael had a heart-to-heart talk in Havana on the afternoon of New Year's Eve. In that scene, Michael treats Fredo as a confidant and partner, and Fredo is overwhelmed.

After Michael disowns Fredo, Fredo seems utterly in pain because of the rift. At Mama's funeral, when Fredo and Michael embrace, one can see the emotion in his face as he believes that Michael has forgiven him and welcomed him back into the fold. If Michael had let him live, Fredo wouldn't have dared disturb this reconciliation.

Although I agree with you, Enzo, that Fredo no longer posed a danger, I don't consider Pacino's opinion any more valid than anyone else's, unless during the filming, John Cazale was instructed by FFC, as part of his "motivation", to portray Fredo's anger as that of a man who still hated his brother and still wanted to get even, and that his later docility while living at the Tahoe estate was deliberate, and designed to throw Michael off the track while he (Fredo) still contemplated and/or planned his revenge, and Pacino was aware of this.

Short of that, this is nothing more than pure speculation on everyone's part.

The only opinions I'd possibly consider more valid than someone else's are those of the authors.

I believe actors like Pacino and DeNiro research a lot and try to get into the character as much as possible. I speculate that Pacino would have discussed the minutest of the details with FFC before the boathouse scene.

I agree that John Cazale and FFC probably had extensive conversations about Fredo's motivation, but Pacino would have had to be aware of what they talked about.

On the other hand, as part of his (Pacino's) motivation, and with the desire of FFC to portray Michael's cold bloodedness in mind, he (Pacino) might have been told that his brother was harmless.

Plaw and Cristina, I don't necesserly agree with Pacino, in fact I don't have an opinion at all about this.
I just wanted to tell you what Pacino tought. Not that his opinion is any more worthy than yours, but you know, it's always fun to hear what the actor himself thought about it.

I don't have a collection of playboys (never read one of these, honestly ), I found this interview on another boards. There wasn't a date mentioned.

Thank you for the info, Enzo; I find it interesting to know what the actors themselves thought of the characters, storyline, etc.

And I'm gratified to learn that Pacino and I think alike .

Now if only the interviewer had asked Pacino which woman he thought was Michael's true love, Apollonia or Kay...

You know what, maybe I can find the interview back. Wouldn't take so much time. It was not all about The GF, but you might find it interesting anyway
I'm not sure were to post it (here or in the general thread.) Well, I'll post it here, and then a mod can remove it if he thinks so.

Edit: Got it already.

Q1
PLAYBOY: You’re considered one of the best actors of your generation. And yet
some people might say——
PACINO: I know, I haven’t made a good film since Dog Day Afternoon. Somebody at a press conference once asked me, “Do you think you’ll ever be as good as you were in Dog Day?” And I
said flatly, “No.” That answered that.

Q2
PLAYBOY: That’s 30 years ago. Fans of Scarface may disagree.
PACINO: Well, that’s one in 30 years. How’s that for a batting average? [laughs]

Q3
PLAYBOY: Come on, we don’t have to remind you of what you’ve done. You even won an Oscar for 1992’s Scent of a Woman.
PACINO: I’m horsing around here. I don’t think I could compare my films. It’s a matter of evolving and changing, going one way, then sideways, then up, then down. It’s what we do. Everybody who has achieved a certain amount of success as an actor has certain seminal pictures.

Q4
PLAYBOY: So if you could select fi ve or six of your works to put in a time capsule, which would they be?
PACINO: To show who I was? I would have to go back and painstakingly look at every one of the fi lms I’ve made and discuss it with some people and come up with some conclusions. Just off the top I’d say Godfather I and II, Scarface, Serpico, Looking for Richard and Dick Tracy.

Q5
PLAYBOY: How do you account for the lasting impact your Scarface character seems to have had? Tony Montana is on T-shirts, sweatshirts, headbands, posters. Pop-iconsbaseball players such as David Ortiz have called it their favorite film.
PACINO: Scarface somehow captured people’s imagination. It has all the ingredients of the movies of old, the guy bucking the odds. It’s such a visceral picture— you either go with it or you don’t. I must say that I did fi nd I had galvanized my energy when I did that character. Everything
sort of came together for me. Scarface was vilifi ed, for the most part, when it came out. It wasmore of an underground movie. But here it is, almost 25 years later, and it’s still surviving with tremendous gusto. That’s why you have to stay with a thing if you feel it.

Q6
PLAYBOY: When you go to parties, are you ever asked to imitate Tony?
PACINO: It depends on the party. And since I haven’t been to a party in 47 years, I can say only that I’ve dreamed I’ve been to a party where people asked me.

Q7
PLAYBOY: The generation before yours produced three actors that others emulated: Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift and James Dean. Your generation’s three are you, Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson. Who belongs in the generation that has followed yours?
PACINO: Sean Penn , Johnny Depp and Russell Crowe . They should be in The Brothers Karamazov together.

Q8
PLAYBOY: Were you surprised Penn wanted to get out of acting some years ago?
PACINO: Sometimes you go through these phases. He has a real gift for directing, too, and writing. Part of it is his need to be in control of things. When you’re an actor you have to be able to let go of that control. I think he’s come to terms with that. He’s a
great actor in movies. Look at Bobby De Niro—he waited a long time to direct, and
he made a wonderful movie with A Bronx Tale. Now he’s directing another one, a spy
movie with Matt Damon. The point is, he’s quite capable of directing.

Q9
PLAYBOY: Why aren’t you?
PACINO: I don’t know why. There’s a misconception about directors. They’re people who can bring you into a story in a certain way and tell the story directorially. Warren Beatty can do it. He’s a sensational actor, but he’s also a great director Robert Redford can do it. He speaks in a language only a director can speak. I don’t see the world that way. I wouldn’t know how to do it, nor would I care to. Only on occasion did I know I could direct— as with Looking for Richard, which
was an extension of my vision of something I wanted to say. Sometimes I’m very inarticulate unless I’m emotional. I can’t speak in a cold, clear, meticulous way. I’m not good at that. That’s not the case with acting, because I’ve been doing it my whole life. Acting comes more naturally
o me. Or it used to. I don’t know—now *beep* comes more naturally to me.

Q10
PLAYBOY: Yet you have a boxed set of three independent films coming out soon on DVD. You directed two of them—Chinese Coffee and Looking for Richard—and you were heavily involved with the third, The Local Stigmatic. Why did it take so long for you to release them?
PACINO: I’ll tell you the truth: I don’t know what the hell I was doing by not letting them out. Why didn’t I? Frankly, I don’t know why.

Q11
PLAYBOY: Are you concerned that since some of these works have never been shown in theaters they may be interpreted as failures?
PACINO: The truth is, they could have been released. Distributors wanted to release them. But Fox Searchlight Pictures and I came to the conclusion that it was better for the films to be released on DVD. It’s like putting out a paperback instead of a hardback. Our world has changed; DVDs have become more acceptable now. When we consider the film, we have to consider what we’ve got and not pretend it’s something else. We’re not pretending these movies are going to compete with other movies in theaters.

Q12
PLAYBOY: Would you say The Local Stigmatic, a violent, dense film about two
Cockney lowlifes, is a good date film?
PACINO: [Laughs] If you happen to be a resident of a mental institution and you get breaks periodically. It’s only 52 minutes long. Maybe if you take your nurse or psychiatrist.

Q13
PLAYBOY: And what about Chinese Coffee, a grim story about two older artists whose lives haven’t turned out as expected?
PACINO: Well, if you weren’t a resident of an institution, you’d be joining one shortly after seeing both of those films together. I just hope people get through them without falling asleep or turning them off. Basically these are pieces of material that I enjoyed, that I liked when I read them. There’s something about getting a reaction to a work that stimulates you. You want to share it withsomeone. That was the principle of it. Who am I to hold on to this stuff when a lot of work I’ve done is already out here, open for scrutiny, and these aren’t nearly in the same class as some of those things? So I thought, What the hell, I might as well release them. What can happen? If people like the set and it becomes a collector’s item—or if they don’t and it doesn’t—I made the effort.

Q14
PLAYBOY: When you read reviews, whether good or bad, do you ignore them?
PACINO: Positive ones can be as harmful as negative ones. When I was a young actor I hoped to go unnoticed. I hoped only that they would say I was adequate, which I thought was better than being told I was lousy. When I was in a play called Awake and Sing! at the Charles Playhouse in Boston, we were backstage while the play was going on. An actor was reading something and banging his fist, saying, “Wow! Fantastic!” I came around the corner and said, “What’s going on?”
And he said, “Oh, nothing.” He got a little nervous. He then said, “Just a great
notice.” I said, “Oh yeah?” And I started reading it, and it was a fantastic, glowing
notice—until the last paragraph, where it said, “With the one exception of Al Pacino. If you could tolerate him….” As I was reading it I heard my cue to go onstage. [laughs] And I started laughing. I thought it was funny. I was 25. I’d love
to be at that stage again, when I could laugh at the magnificent timing of it all.

Q15
PLAYBOY: Two for the Money, starring you and Matthew McConaughey, came out shortly before your DVD collection. How do you decide which to promote?
PACINO: I do try to help out a movie that cost a certain amount of money to make.
But Two for the Money has a different audience than the DVDs of my small films,
so how I promote each is different. The DVDs will have to find outlets—I could
see myself on Charlie Rose or perhaps Larry King talking about them. On Charlie Rose I
could just stare and let him do the talking. I’m not big on being on television.

Q16
PLAYBOY: Why don’t you like the talk show circuit?
PACINO: I don’t think I function very well on camera. Maybe I just haven’t done talk shows enough. I grew up when actors didn’t do that sort of thing, and today they do. I’m a little behind on adjusting to it. But here we are talking about my DVDs, and I’ve become a promoter. Next thing we’ll be promoting the heavyweight championship between me and Dustin Hoffman. Did you know that Alexander Cohen, the great impresario, had an idea many years ago to go to a boxing ring in Madison Square Garden and have me and Dustin put on the gloves? I wonder if he ever mentioned that to Dustin, because he mentioned it to me. All I said was, “Can we do it without
gloves?” People have these ideas. I swear to you, that was his idea.

Q17
PLAYBOY: Godfather I and II are at the top of most lists of great American films. What’s the problem with The Godfather Part III?
PACINO: You know what the problem with that film is? The real problem? Nobody
wants to see Michael have retribution and feel guilty. That’s not who he is. In the other scripts, in Michael’s mind he is avenging his family and saving them.
Michael never thinks of himself as a gangster— not as a child, not while he is one and not afterward. That is not the image he has
of himself. He’s not a part of the GoodFellas thing. Michael has this code; he lives by something that makes audiences respond. But once he goes away from that and starts crying over coffins, making confessions and feeling remorse, it isn’t right. I applaud Francis Coppola for trying to get to that, but Michael is so frozen in that image. There is in him a deep feeling of having betrayed his mother by killing his brother. That was a mistake. And we are ruled by
these mistakes in life as time goes on. He was wrong. Like in Scarface when Tony kills Manny—that is wrong, and he pays for it. And in his way, Michael pays for it.


Q18
PLAYBOY: In retrospect, what should Michael have done with his brother Fredo?
PACINO: Banned him, exiled him in some way. He was harmless. That part of Michael is off, just as when he denies the mother of his children. How could you do a thing like that? You hurt the
children. That’s what makes it powerful. But where do you go from there?

Q19
PLAYBOY:
The American Cinematheque recently honored you with a lifetime achievement award. Are you getting to a time in your life when such honors make you feel as though you belong in a museum?
PACINO: I love it. [laughs] Do I feel I belong in a museum? I feel like I am a museum.

Q20
PLAYBOY: You and De Niro were recently named the two greatest actors over 50. How does that affect your hat size?
PACINO: I’m just hoping that when we reach 102, he and I will be the best actors over 102.

Yes, Fredo did show genuine remorse in the boathouse scene. And even more so at mama's wake. However, that would not have prevented him from committing another betrayal against his brother...even if many years later.

You mean an 'inadvertant betrayal' like the one that nearly had him and his wife killed and the Corleone Family brought to its knees to be overrun by Hyman Roth? A betrayal like that which Fredo might not have realized was a planned hit?

Michael was definitely justified in having Fredo killed...and I don't believe it was for revenge. It was to have him punished for what he did, and mainly to prevent it from happening again. As I've said here before (and will say again whenever the need arises)...had they not been brothers and shared the same mother, Fredo the traitor would not have been allowed to live even as long as he was. And I doubt a soul on this BB would have a problem with Fredo's fate.

After all, their blood relation sure didn't prevent Fredo from conspiring behind Michael's back. So why should it prevent Michael from bestowing on Fredo the usual fate of a traitor?

Which of course, he didn't know was coming... !!

Apple

What is "punishment" if not a form of "revenge"?

It's also designed to teach someone a lesson. Well fine. But if the punishment is to kill someone, what good is it that the dead person learned his lesson?

Yes, you are correct; If Fredo wasn't Michael's brother he would not have been allowed to live as long as he did.

But if he wasn't Michael's brother, he wouldn't have been in the position of being used by Roth in the first place.

Oh, and when I used the term "inadvertant", I meant like a slip of the tongue, as in "Old Johnny knows these places like the back of his hand."

Fredo knew that helping Roth in the Tahoe plot was wrong. He was just too stupid to realize what Roth really had up his sleeve (altho Turnbull, to name one member, would argue that he knew it was gonna be a hit).

But, IMO, he had learned his lesson and would have been a lot more careful in the future.

Ahhhh my friend. This is one of those rare times that I must disagree with you. Yes, Fredo was mad at Mike for treating him like the kid brother. No doubt that there was resentment and jealousy on Fredo's part.

But with all that I do not believe that Fredo knew that Roth and Ola were using him as part of a plot to kill Michael.

And I still don't believe, for one moment that Fredo intentionally set up Mike for a hit or would have intentionally set him up for one in the future.

Fredo was easliy mislead, He was weak and stupid. He was killed because he was stupid enough to believe that he could help with the negotiations and that there was something in it for him. I will never believe that Fredo knowingly set his own brother up for the kill.

Unlike Michael, Fredo had a heart.

I don't know about it being just that Michael had his own brother, a simple minded one, killed for making a stupid mistake. Yes a terrible mistake that could have cost Michael his own life, his wife's life or the lives of his children. That's a hard one to swallow if you are in Michael's shoes.

But at the same time Michael knew better, Fredo didn't.

The only reason that Michael had Fredo killed was to assure himself and those around him that he was the almighty powerful Don who would not forgive or show any sign of weekness. It was to show the Roccos and the Neris that he was not one to ever be screwed with.

"Look what I did to my own brother. If I had my own brother killed for betraying me, then you guys are nothing to me, and I'll have you killed twice as fast if you ever try to screw me."

It was Michael's way of showing all those under him how ruthless he was. It was a message to them all.

He killed his own brother. A weak brother. A brother that he was obviously supposed to watch over and take care of. He killed his mother's son. He killed his father's son. What a cold hearted bastard!

Don Cardi

Sure did. Thank you Enzo; what a bonus!

And I got the answer about the date of the interview. It mentions that Dog Day Afternoon was 30 years ago, so this article must have appeared around 2005. Pacino is having a nice retrospective look at his career.

As for his notion of why GF3 didn't click, I can't say our minds mesh on that one . There was a whole lot more wrong with GF3 than Michael showing remorse and crying over coffins .

This has come up many times, of course, but it bears repeating here.

I have to agree with Don Cardi ( ). Fredo did not know that it was gonna be a hit.

The proof is in his late night phone call comment to Johnny Ola: "You guys lied to me"

What did they lie to him about if not that?

I've often wondered what would Michael done with Fredo if Mama lived for say another 10-20 more years?

I imagine it would have been a 10-20 year stay of execution.

Now that's what I call avoiding the death penalty on a technicality.

Yea but since Michael couldn't trust Fredo, would Michael have Fredo with him 24/7 or would he bannish him to some deserted island somewhere?

A very astute observation, Sicilian Babe. It's akin to a working class person's resentment of a rich person, or the jealousy that, say, the underachieving high school students feel for the bright and popular ones. What they REALLY despise about their antagonists is that they are not one of them.

I agree that the jealousy and resentment Fredo feels toward Michael will always be a part of him, deep inside (and I emphasize "deep" because, after the Roth fiasco blew up in Fredo's face, I expect that guilt and regret would be in the forefront of his psyche for quite a while to come. Nothing like the trauma of nearly losing a brother to smack that jealousy down a notch ).

But as to whether that resentment would grow, let's remember that Fredo's relationship with Michael is a love-hate one, and not a "hate only" one. After the devastation that his cooperation with Roth wreaked on Fredo's life, I don't think his original anger would spread like wild fire. I believe the results of the Roth affair and Michael's (perceived) forgiveness are in fact the very things that would keep it in check.

Actually, I think Michael is the offender here. Before Michael stated, "That's the way pop wanted it," Fredo poured out -- with justified anger and nearly uncontrollable emotion -- why Roth's offer was so attractive to him: he believed it was his chance to earn something on his own, something that wasn't given to him by Michael. He expressed the humiliation he felt at having to be provided for by his kid brother and at having to perform the most menial tasks.

And what does Michael do? He doesn't listen to a word Fredo says. He doesn't hear the hurt pride, the build up of indignities, the feelings of exclusion. Fredo's question, "Did you ever once think about that?" remains unanswered. All Michael sees is the betrayal. Michael's quiet, cold detachment is much more dangerous than Fredo's explosive and agitated state. When Michael embraces Fredo at Mama's funeral, poor Fredo thinks that Michael is acting out of compassion and understanding for why he did what he did. But, as we see shortly, that is not the case.

So I agree with the first part of your post Sicilian Babe, but I guess we'll again "agree to disagree" on the second part . I just don't think Fredo would betray Michael again, but that's just my opinion (and Don Cardi's, and plawrence's, and olivant's, and Cuneo's, etc. )

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

He had him living there at the Tahoe estate. Fredo (who I maintain "didn't know") probably thought that Mike was being a nice guy and all was forgiven.

Little did he know that he was being kept there so Michael could keep an eye on him.

Exactly! This is another observation I like to point out when people say that Michael was justified for killing Fredo.

Michael would have ensured that Al Neri kept an eye on Fredo from the moment he disowned him to the moment of Mama's death, however long that period might be -- even if Mama lived to be 97. This careful watching/spying was to ensure that Fredo didn't intentionally or unintentionally fall in with the enemy and put Michael in danger again.

So if Michael is content to do this for as many years as it takes until Mama dies, why not just continue to do it for the rest of Fredo's natural life?

It wasn't necessary for Michael to kill Fredo. There were other ways to ensure that he wouldn't be a threat, as the above shows.

Amen! Now that's what I've been struggling to say with all my wordy paragraphs. Don Cardi gets right to the heart of the matter . (Gotta love that last paragraph.)

Even Michael himself said it: "Fredo -- he's got a good heart."

No, Fredo didn't intentionally set up the attempted hit, and yes, Roth may have had access to him because of his being the brother of Don Corleone.

But also, had Fredo not been Michael's brother and Vito's son...then he would not have had that cushy job in Vegas, planning parties and driving people to airports and banging waitresses two at a time. He was a bumbling idiot and was afforded a fairly comfortable life because of the family he was born into. He should have appreciated that much, but did not. He truly didn't realize how stupid and therefore dangerous to the family he was (as most truly stupid people don't) and for that reason he had to go, and Michael was completely justified.

As has also been discussed here before, the Roth incident was not the first time Fredo went against the Family. He had been warned by Michael before. Just because he was now living at Tahoe and apparently remorseful at what he had done...it doesn't mean he had learned his lesson. Somebody as smart as or smarter than Hyman Roth could have gotten to him eventually. He was no longer of any use to the family. He had to go.

Apple

Well, maybe.....

What you say may be true, but Cristina made a good point, I think.

Sit Fredo down and explain to him that he better be damn careful going forward because if he ever screws up again he's dead, keep a close watch on him at the estate, never let him go anywhere alone, and treat him, in general, like a twelve-year old, and I think all the bases would've been covered and Michael could've let him live.

And in and of itself, the fact that "he was no longer of any use to the family" is not justification for killing him.

First of all, he was still a loved brother and uncle.

And second, even if he did have some "use", by your logic that should not have been enough to save him.

Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that Fredo's anger goes way beyond that. As for Michael being compassionate, there is no room for that. Fredo, intentionally or not, almost brought about the destruction of the family. Why? Because he was passed over?? Tough noogies. Having been brought up in the business, there is no way, consciously or not, he did not perceive that there was some evil inherent in the deal Roth offered him. And it would be impossible for Michael to forgive that.

While Cristina touched on the fact that Fredo was jealous of what he didn't have, there has to be the understanding that it was something he would NEVER have, something he was incapable of achieving. His resentment was not only for the fact that their father passed him over for Michael, but that he could never BE Michael. He wanted the power and respect that Michael had, but he was both unwilling and incapable of putting in the time, effort and hard work that it took to achieve it.

Let me try this, for all of you belonging to the "Michael-Was Justified" or the "Fredo Had To Go" school of thought.

And I'll address this specifically to Apple or SB, since I know that you both have children:

Suppose the following:

That you are wealthy, and you have a brother who is hard up for money, so helps to arrange for the kidnapping of your daughter, expecting to share in the ransom.

Fortunately, the plot goes awry, your daughter returns home safely and unharmed, and only two years later, and accidentally, you learn of your brother's complicity, although you have no evidence to present to law enforcement authorities.

Would you kill your brother?

I would say, "No", you wouldn't.

You certainly would guard yourself and your family against him, confront him with your knowledge of his duplicity, and have nothing to do with him ever agian, but I don't think you would kill him.

The reason is because you are both law-abiding citizens, and as horrible as a kidnapping plot by your brother against your daughter would be, you still would not kill the guy.

So here's my question:

Why, just because Michael is a Mafia chief and a murderer, and a career criminal, is it any more morally justifiable for him to kill his brother than it would be for you to?

Does the fact that he's a criminal already make it right, but in your case, since your're not, it would be wrong?

Because he has the nerve to do it, where you might only wish to, does that make it right?

Would you do it if you head the nerve to?

Yes, Michael Corleone's life was bound by a moral code which is different than ours.

And that certainly explains his actions in killing his brother, but it does not, IMO, justify them.

If you don't mind Plaw, I would like to add that the brother is mentally slow. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

If Fredo was ruthless, cunning and smart, then I could understand Michael's decision to kill him. Not that I would agree with it, or say that he was justified in killing his brother, but I could certainly rationalize it and understand. But that was not the case here.

So in your hypothetical scenerio I think that it is very important to point out that your brother was mentally slow.


Don Cardi

Fredo was warned about taking sides AGAINST the Family in a very similar way to that after the confrontation with Moe Green. While Michael didn't specify that the next time he screwed up he'd be dead, I think the warning was sufficient. And even though it was several years later that he was approached by Johnny Ola, Fredo should've remembered this, instead of allowing his self-interests (something in it for him) to get in the way.

It was no longer a matter of 'keeping an eye' on Fredo. He had proven himself a risk to the Family one time too many.

Plawrence, I have to say that the 'family' scenario you suggest in a later post is quite ridiculous. I can't help wondering how you could presume to guess with either SB or I would say. But that aside.

As you say, "...Michael Corleone's life was bound by a moral code which is different than ours."

But so was Fredo's. He grew up and made a living in the same Family, the same business Michael did. And he made his choices knowing the consequenses if his brother ever got wise to him. And he suffered those consequenses, and Michael was COMPLETELY justified in ordering them.

Oh, and sure Fredo was still a loved brother & uncle. Didn't matter, nor should it have. The only family relation important to Michael was that of a 'loved son', which is why he waited until the death of their mother to have Fredo whacked. And he was right on both counts.

Apple

Al, I just love you. I knew we must be of the same mind.
And not to hijack the thread... BTW what is it about? Fredo didn't know! If he would do it again.

First of all, why is my scenario ridiculous?

There are for example, literally thousands of murders, etc., every day in this country.

And at least hundreds which involve one familymember killing another.

And probably in only a tiny fraction of these cases does a third family member take revenge against the family member who perpetrated the crime.

So why is my scenario ridiculous?

And I can presume to know what you both would say because I know you both - to the extent that I do know you - to be law abiding people.


As far as Fredo having been already "warned" by Michael against going against the family before goes, surely you are not comapred his publicly disagreeing with Michael with complicity in a possible assassination plot against him?

Surely you don't mean to imply that had Fredo publicly disgareed with Michael a second time, that that would have been grounds for his assassination?

Do you really believe that Fredo understood that if he ever went against the family again that it would be a fatal mistake? I don't believe so. First of all he was not smart enough to think that his own brother would kill him. And for that matter I don't believe that Michael's warning to him was one that resonated a death threat. At that point I still don't think that Michael was ruthless and cold hearted enough to even think of having his own brother killed. But that's for another topic.

Before the attack on Michael in Tahoe, when was Fredo ever a risk to the family? In front of Moe Green? I wouldn't call his trying to smooth things out between Moe and Mike a risk to the family.

There is no way, in my opinion, that anyone can hold Fredo to the same standards as Michael as far as knowing the consequences of the business that they were in. Fredo never had the privaledge of being tutored by his father, the way the Sonny and Tom did, and later on Michael. If anything Fredo was shielded from the realities of the business that his family was in. That is why he could not react quickly when his father was shot in front of him. And that is also why the shooters didn't even bother to take out Fredo during the hit on the Don, because it was probably common knowledge within the families that Fredo was not really part of the guts of the business, and therefore was not threat. I'm sure that Gatto, when conspiring with Barzini's people, assured them that Fredo was not a person to worry about. All Fredo was good for was to run a mickey mouse nightclub, to pick someone up at the airport. Even Vito, in his conversation with Michael in the garden, says "Fredo, well," motioning to Michael that Fredo was never cut out for the business.

There is no justification for killing someone like Fredo. Someone who was stupid enough to think that nothing would happen to Michael. Someone who only did it because he thought that finally, there would be something in it for him. That he could finally do something good in Michael and the rest of the family's eyes. I assure you that Fredo probably lived with the thought that the family looked down on him because he was unable to even hold onto his gun when Vito was shot, let alone fire a bullet. Dealing with Roth was Fredos way of redeeming himself in the eyes of his family. " Hey, you see? I'm smart, I COULD do things! I helped the family"

Again, IMO The only reason that Michael had Fredo killed was to assure himself and those around him that he was the almighty powerful Don who would not forgive or show any sign of weekness. It was to show the Roccos and the Neris that he was not one to ever be screwed with. It was Michael's way of showing all those under him how ruthless he was. It was a message to them all. "I even killed my own brother, so don't you even think about going against me!"
It was a show of strength. Michael used Fredo's killing as the prime example. Fredo became the sacraficial lamb.


Don Cardi

Because in your story I don't see you mention that my brother and I are members of a powerful organized crime family and that were it not for a split second of quick thinking I would have been riddled with bullets and the Family I was head of virtually destroyed due to my brother's 'complicity'.

Michael and Fredo were born and raised in, and now both made a living within a powerful organized crime family, a virtual empire. They were not members of an ordinary family, and were obviously not driven by ordinary family values.

So, the comparison you present to SB and myself regarding a kidnapping of our children is ridiculous. Aside from that, to assume that we wouldn't order our brother killed because the kidnapping plan 'went awry' means that you might also be suggesting that Michael shouldn't have had Tessio killed because after all, his plan to lead Michael into Barzini's assasination trap didn't work.

Guess he should've been let off the hook...for old time's sake.

Yes to both.

Apple

Whether a fatal mistake or not...he was clearly warned not to take sides against the Family again. Ever. That meant not only taking part in an assasination attempt of which he knew nothing...but to go against the Family in ANY WAY. By dealing with Roth and Ola he was consciously conspiring against his brother and his family for personal gain.


In Michael's eyes, his trying to 'smooth things out' was taking sides AGAINST the Family. Therefore, Michael considered him a risk and sufficiently warned him not to do so again. And if you want to use that particular term, then 'smoothing things out' was exactly what he was trying to do with Roth since he believed that story of Michael being 'tough on the negotiations'.

So yes, both times he proved a risk to the Family. The first time he was subdued, the second time he was punished.


Yeesh...I gotta go back to work. Good discussion though, I could go on forever. The dynamics between Fredo and Michael and Fredo's betrayal/murder is to me an inexhaustimve and extremely interesting subject.

Later...

Apple

More interesting than whether or not Signor Roberto's socks exactly matched his shoes?

I think Fredo would have done it again. He wanted to get Michael out of the way. Without Michael he might feel a sort of power. He might even feel respected. I think Fredo wants the power he couldn't receive and that drove him crazy. And he told Michael that that reason he did what he did was because there was something in there "just for him." Michael saw Fredo as unloyal so he just had to get rid of Fredo.

If Fredo of had done it once for that reason, he would definitely do it again.

Ooh - an actual debate on the Godfather!! It's been so long!!

First of all, Plaw, what makes you think that if my stupid and weak brother would've put my children at risk, I wouldn't have him killed?? I am, after all, Sicilian.

I think that the answer to your question can best be answered by a quote from the book. When Tom Hagen goes up to New England to visit Kay after she leaves Michael, she wants to know why Carlo couldn't be forgiven. He had, after all, stopped beating his wife, worked hard at the job the family gave him, and, by all appearances, had straightened out. And Tom Hagen's answer? "In this world, he could be forgiven." (I'm paraphrasing, by the way).

You cannot compare the two worlds. As Apple correctly said, both Michael and Fredo were raised in that world and had a grasp of the consequences. Why shouldn't Fredo have understood the possible consequences of his actions?? And why wouldn't Michael have acted as he did?? That's what happens to traitors in that world.

As for DC's comments, you are misundertanding my position on Fredo. You see him as weak and slow and someone to be pitied, a "sacrificial lamb". I don't. I see him as an envious and angry man who feels inferior to his younger brother. He is willing to put the family at risk to feed his own ego. IMHO, that makes him VERY dangerous.

As for Fredo trying to smooth things out with Moe Greene, which would not put the family at risk, I'm sure that Sonny believed the same thing when he tried to get some assurances from Sollozzo. And yet look what that did to the family!!

Good point.

I don't agree, though.

I believe in the power of forgiveness.

Could that possibly be because I have a load of crap that I need people to forgive me for?

If Michael counts that instance as one of the reasons why Fredo had to be eliminated then that is NO justification at all.

The fault here was with Michael. He and Tom go to Las Vegas, not even giving Fredo a prior briefing about the Family's plans to move to Nevada and buy out Moe Green. They don't even tell Fredo that Vito is semi-retired and that Michael is the de facto Don. Fredo is totally clueless. So when Moe Green reacts with shock and anger to Michael's proposal, Fredo is equally shocked. And it's no wonder to me that he tries to "smooth things out" between his boss -- a rather bullying boss who takes his frustrations out on him and "flies off the handle" -- and his brother. It's self-preservation.

If Michael had given Fredo a briefing and ample warning of what was going to happen in Vegas, and Fredo STILL sought to reconcile Moe and Michael, then I can perhaps see Michael pointing to that as an example of disloyalty. But Michael was the one who slipped up, not Fredo.
For aforementioned reasons, I don't believe he was a risk to the family the first time. So therefore, I really don't see that there was a first time.

He certainly was a risk in the Roth incident because of his gullibility, But if Michael's justification is "he betrayed the family too many times," then he doesn't have a leg to stand on. There was only one betrayal, and the results were not at all what Fredo intended.

But if Michael's justification is that Fredo's witlessness would endanger Michael again, I still don't think that's valid. Michael ordered Al Neri to watch over Fredo while their mother is alive. When if Mama lived to be 97? Would Michael have become tired of waiting and have killed Fredo anyway? No. So if he were willing to keep an eye on Fredo for a long period of time without killing him, why not just continue keeping an eye on him for the rest of his natural life? He didn't have to choose murder. There were other ways.

Plaw, now you paraphrased me paraphrasing The Godfather!!

I understand your belief in the power of forgiveness. However, nobody needed forgiving more than Michael Corleone, and he certainly wasn't a believer!!

I agree, Cristina.

But you know these gangsters.

This "Sicilian Thing" that's been going on for thousands of years. They must have their revenge.

And I'm sure no one would've minded waiting even if Mama lived to be 197.

Revenge, after all, is a dish best eaten cold.

Sorry, Cristina, but Fredo knew from the infamous Sollozzo meeting that you NEVER take sides with anyone against the family. He was there. He saw what repercussions that had on the Family. He knew it was dangerous to let anyone outside the family know if he was thinking something that went against the family. Although I don't consider his actions a betrayal, it showed that his stupidity, coupled with his eagerness to please, made him dangerous. After all, Moe Greene slapping Fredo around made the Corleone's lose face. Fredo's actions in Vegas were just another example of how he could be a detriment to the family rather than a plus.

Hardly grounds for killing the poor schlub.

No, it's not. However, it showed how truly clueless he was. If he was that eternally clueless, then he could easily be tricked again and made to betray the family - if forgiven.

Yes, Sicilian Babe's arguments are very good, as they support her position that Fredo conspired deliberately with Roth to kill Michael and that he would do it again.

I tried to bring her around to our side, but she just won't come.

But seriously, this is just me, but I'm kind of puzzled as to why someone would, or could, think that Fredo deliberately tried to have Michael killed after viewing --

1. the scene of bonding in Havana, where Fredo basks in being treated as Michael's confidant and partner.
2. the scene at Mama's funeral, where Fredo requests to see Michael. It seemed obvious to me that the rift between them was traumatic for him. When Michael enters the room to embrace him, Fredo tightens the hug like he's holding on to his life line. I could practically taste his relief that (in his mind) their brotherly relationship had been restored.
3. the late night phone call from Johnny Ola, during which Fredo says, "You guys lied to me." Isn't this the single most obvious clue that Fredo didn't know that the plan was to kill Michael? Doesn't it prove that Fredo was deceived?
4. Fredo's death, which I found unspeakably sad, because it felt like an innocent man had been murdered. Could anyone actually watch that and think, "Yeah, Fredo had it coming. He got his just desserts." I got the opposite feeling: that Fredo never meant to harm Michael at all, nor would he ever have.

Cristina, my feeling is that Fredo had to know, even if it was subconsciously, that his deal with Roth was going to mean some harm to Michael. Even if he didn't want to admit it to himself, he had grown up in that world. He knew what treachery was. He had witnessed his father's attempted murder. He KNEW, even if he didn't know. You know??

As for his feelings of guilt, I'm sure Fredo had them. Even Michael was capable of guilt and regret. But that doesn't mean he didn't put the family in danger and need to be eliminated.

First of all, whether Fredo was given a 'briefing' or not (which he was not entitled to anyway), if he had any brains he should have known to keep his mouth shut even if he didn't necessarily agree with Michael's plans to buy out Moe Green. He should have known that if Michael was there on behalf of the Corleone Family, then Michael was spaaking for their father and the Corleone Family. He should have known to keep his mouth shut, like Tom and Johnny did, let Moe storm out of the room and not try to override his brother right in front of everyon by suggesting that Tom the consiglieri (as far as he knew) contact The Godfather to see what else could be done. At that moment, was as careless as Santino had been during the Sollozzo meeting though luckily with less effect. He took sides against HIS OWN FAMILY, let the seams show, and therefore put it at risk. Maybe not short-term, but long-term risk. That is why he was warned right then and there by Michael to NEVER let it happen again. Let's not forget that it's revealed in GFII that Moe Green was a close friend of Hyman Roth. Long as we're all using our creativity, it could be assumed that Moe relayed this incident to Roth which planted the seed in Roth's head that the weak, stupid Fredo Corleone could be easily misled and swayed into a phony deal such as the one he was.

Second, it's doubtful that when deciding that Fredo must die...Michael thought back to that Moe Green conversation and decided that that, along with the Roth betrayal, was what would justify his ordering his brother's death. However (and again), remoreseful as he was and safe as he seemed within the cocoon of the Tahoe Compound, as content as he seemed taking his nephew on fishing trips...Fredo had proven one time too many that he was incapable of remaining loyal to his Family. Both his blood family and otherwise. He had to go.

And Sicilian Babe...it's nice to be in at least partial agreement with you on this subject. As you succinctly state...Fredo put the family in danger and NEEDED to be eliminated.

However as we'll probably forever disagree on whether Fredo knew he was about to die on that boat (which he didn't)...I have to say that I don't think for one second that he ever realized Roth had a hit planned on Michael and that he was assisting in making it possible.

Take care, all...!!!

Apple

That's so sweet. The power of forgiveness is nice, and for ordinary people like you & me it's probably the best way to go.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GANGSTERS HERE!!! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD OF ORGANIZED CRIME!! THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY PEOPLE, THIS WAS NOT AN ORDINARY FAMILY. FREDO WAS A TRAITOR TO HIS OWN BROTHER, DON CORLEONE, HEAD OF THE FAMILY...WHO HAD YEARS EARLIER WARNED HIM NOT TO TAKE SIDES AGAINST HIS FAMILY. FREDO IGNORED THAT WARNING FOR NOTHING LESS THAN HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.

And I'm sure to some degree, Michael DID forgive Fredo, since he even states that he knows Fredo was misled and lied to. I think he forgave him after being spoken to by Connie at their mother's wake.

But...that doesn't mean that, strictly in the business sense, he would not come to the decision Fredo Corleone had betrayed his Family and had to suffer the fate of all who had betrayed the Family before.

Another thing to consider...while the actual hit on Michael was unsuccessful, the attempt itself put into motion the entire set of events that became the rest of the movie. Having failed at killing Michael (both in Nevada and Cuba), Roth devised the setup of Frankie, which led to the Senate Hearings that again nearly brought Michael and the Corleone Family down and eventually resulted in Frankie's demise (Roth...he played this one beautifully). Fredo somehow knew about Questadt 'belonging' to Roth. He was in with them good, and though he was blissfully unaware of an impending 'hit' on his brother, and although Michael lived through it Fredo's alliance with Johnny Ola and Hyman Roth did ultimately cause much damage to the Family.

Fredo had to go. Michael was not only justified but really if he was to be an effective Don and protect his Family...he really had no other choice.

Apple

And with this post, you have just made our ( Plaw and I ) position about Fredo even stronger.

He was clueless. And if he was eternally clueless, then he could be easily tricked again.

Exactly SB. His being clueless is what allowed him to be tricked into believing that he would be helping Michael and The Corleone family by doing this one thing for Roth and Ola. Anyone with a half of brain would have seen what was coming a mile away, and would have said no way.

But as you have just said yourself, Fredo was clueless and had been tricked, and therfore there was absolutely no justification for Michael to have him killed.

Anyone with a heart would have realized that his clueless and stupid brother had been duped and never intended to betray him. And having the heart to see that would have made Michael realize that while his brother's stupidness and cluelessness was in itself a danger to Michael and the family, his brother was not really responsible for what he did.


Michael could have chose to take another path to make sure that his brother's inability to see a set up coming from a mile away would never happen again. He could have kept him under close scrutiny. But in Michael's mind, to allow Fredo to live would have been a sign of weakness to his enemies and anyone that may have been planning to turn on Michael.

So instead Michael chose to show that he would never allow anyone, even his own clueless and stupid brother to make him vulnerable to his enemies or his potential enemies.

Again, all Michael did by having Fredo killed was to show that he, Michael, would not allow anyone, blood relative or underling, to ever put him in a vulnerable postion. His message was very clear ; "The price for going against me is death, look at what I had done to my own brother." Look at Neri's face when Michael hugs Fredo and makes eye contact with Neri, telling him that it's now time to kill Fredo. Neri looks as though he is saying to himself " Wow, I can't believe that he is actually going to have me kill his own brother!"

Their world, or ours, Fredo was incapable of fully understanding what he was actually doing. Fredo was not smart enough to even think of the consequences.

There was no justification in having him killed.


Don Cardi

Sure he could have. But why should he? Why should he allow this traitor to live at his compound and be around his family, all knowing what he had done and what his actions had caused to happen. Why should a known traitor be kept under 'scrutiny' when there was no further reason for that person to remain alive? Would Michael have afforded that kind of 'path' to any other traitor? No.
The only different path he needed to take in this case was to not allow anything to happen to Fredo while their mother was alive. And his was for mama's sake, not Fredo's. For Fredo was nothing to him now. Not a brother or a friend. Nothing more than a traitor. Past and future risk. Had to be punished, had to go.

In terms of their business, completely justified.

Apple

Let's not get carried away here, DC

There was definitely resentment on Fredo's part towards Michael, and altho he may have bought Ola's song and dance that helping Roth would be "good for the family", Fredo had to know that he was acting in his own self-interest ("He said there was something in it for me - on my own") as well and quite possibly doing the wrong thing.

All I'm arguing is that he knew he screwed up, he was remorseful, and if properly supervised in the future, posed no threat, and therefore was killed needlessly.

Of course Fredo intended to betray him. If he didn't he would never have spoken to Johnny Ola, or would have informed Michael immediately that he'd been approached by Ola/Roth with regard to Family Business. Instead, he decided to work with them, without his brother's knowledge, for the vague promise of 'something in it for him'. Of course he intended to betray Michael.

What Fredo didn't intend was for Michael to be shot at as a result of his conspiring with Roth. His misfortune that he was stupid enough to be duped.

Apple

I beg to differ with you. I don't believe that by Fredo talking to Ola and Roth, that there was an intent of betrayal on his part. You need to keep in mind that The Corleones sent Fredo to Las Vegas. And while Fredo was in Las Vegas, he worked under Moe Green. And by working under Moe Green for all that time, Fredo had to have been exposed to Johnny Ola and Hyman Roth. Keep in mind that Roth was a business associate of Vito in the early years, so Fredo must have known him or of him from back then. Then with his being in Vegas with Moe Green, I am sure that Fredo was reaquainted with Roth and now also came to know Ola.

What I am trying to say is that it was not as though Ola and Roth were strangers to Fredo. It was not as though they were known enemies of the Corleones, at least not on the outside. So Fredo probably became comfortable with Ola, through Moe Green.

Therefore when Ola approchead Fredo about a deal that they were trying to make with Michael, and told him that things were not going as planned, Fredo trusted Ola because he was comfortable with him. He was convinced by Ola that if he did this favor for Ola, it would make the negotiations go smoother and that there would be something in it for Fredo.

I don't believe that Fredo approached Ola, or visa versa, on the blind, out of left field. Fredo was with Moe Green for a pretty long time, and through Moe he had to have been introduced to Ola at some point, and therefore he felt comfortable with Ola and probably trusted him.

Fredo never intended to hurt Michael or betray Michael. He was stupid enough to believe that he would be helping Michael and at the same time would be doing something on his own. Something that Michael would look at and be proud of him for doing. At least that is what Ola probably led him to believe.

And it is probably also safe to say that while Fredo was with Moe Green, he complained every now and then about his not being trusted or directly involved with the family buisness.

"I'm the older brother and my kid brother is running things now?"

I am sure that Green relayed these types of things to Ola and they knew that they could play on Fredo's unhappiness, and make Fredo believe that they were coming to HIM, not Mike, to do something to help himself and The Family.

Don Cardi

According to Fredo's account, he wasn't merely told that 'things were not going as planned'. He was told that Michael, his brother, Don Corleone...was being 'tough on the negotiations'. If he was told that his own brother was being tough on negotiations and they needed his help then by agreeing to help in whatever way he did, supplying whatever information he did...and all the while never mentioning to Michael, Tom or anyone in the Family that he was working and associating with these people...all the while anticipating something in it for him...then he was knowingly betraying his brother.

You don't have to knowingly plan someone's murder in order to be a traitor. Fredo didn't realize there was going to be a hit. Simply working with Roth/Ola based on the story he was given was Fredo's betrayal. Perhaps it's your good nature and understanding heart that's causing a mental block here, Don Cardi...but I honestly can't fathom how you can deny even this.

Apple

This has really become a two part question.

I agree with Apple and Sicilian Babe and disagree with Don Cardi. Fredo knew he was betraying Michael. I forgot where Cristina stands on this part of the question.

But I also agree with Don Cardi and Cristina and disagree with Apple and Sicilian babe. Things could have been arranged so Fredo posed no future threat.

Yes, he did intend to hurt and betray Michael. This intent is revealed during his rant in the boathouse, when he finally loses it about having been 'stepped over' by his 'kid brother'. He loved Michael, but also deeply resented him.

And you cannot possibly believe that he thought for one second that Michael would ever be proud of him for interfering in negotiations with Roth. He was being 'tough' for a reason...and even if that attempted hit had never taken place, Michael would most certainly NOT have been proud of his brother. And even Fredo wasn't dumb enough not to know that. If he really wanted to make Michael proud, he would have let him know the moment he was approached by Ola. Instead, he allowed his own self interests and jealousy to determine his actions.

Of course he intended to hurt and betray Michael.

And therefore he put the entire Corleone Family at risk.

And therefore, he eventually had to die.

And therfore, Michael was justified in having him killed.

Apple

'

Well, plawrence...it's encouraging to see that you're at least half right!!!

By the way, things were arranged so that Fredo posed no future threat. Because the only way that could be guaranteed was if Fredo was no longer alive.

Apple

Touché.

Shall I edit my post to read without killing him ?

Why would he tell Tom, Michael or anyone in the family for that matter that he was talking with Ola?

Michael, Tom and even Vito for that matter never let him in on the "inside" workings of the business.

He experienced this kind of treatment from Michael in Vegas, where he felt that he was finally doing something on his own, running a casino. And when he tried to show Michael that he was finally successful in something that HE did on his own, what did Michael do? He pissed all over it. Told him to get the girls out of here. Embarressed him in front of Moe Green.

So Fredo probably figured, deep down in his subconscience, that if he went to Tom or Mike, and told them that Ola had made him some kind of an offer that would help the family, they would piss all over it and tell him what to do. He probably figured that they would not have let him do something on his own.

Later on he even tells Michael, when they are in Cuba having a drink, that he wished that they could have done this in the past. He says this because in that scene Michael finally confides in him. Michael treats him as an equal in the business at that moment. It is as though Michael finally let Fredo in on the inner workings of the family business. He showed trust in Fredo. Of course we know what Michael's real motive in doing that was, but Fredo didn't.


Sure Fredo was both embarressed and pissed with Mike for the treatment that he gave him. I don't deny that. And his anger probably played a part in trying to do something on his own with Ola and Roth.

But he never intended to actually be a traitor or to hurt Mike in a physical manner. I think that at the very worst, he was trying to show Mike up. Kind of embarass Mike by showing him that he was capable of doing something on his own. I don't believe that even though he went behind Mike's back and dealt with Ola, that his intention was to be a traitor to Mike.

And Michael should have taken all of this into consideration. Do you know why? Because Fredo was his Brother. A weak brother. A brother that he should have protected and treated a little better.

If it were Rocco or Neri that had dealt with Ola, well then I would say that they did so with the intention of hurting Michael and with the intetion of setting him up. And they would have deserved to die.

But Fredo -- "well" -- (Don Cardi jut shrugs his shoulders in the same manner that Don Vito did when talking to Mike about Fredo).


Side Note : I'll tell you this though. It's been quite a while since we had a really good intelligent discussion about The Godfather. I'm really enjoying this! It's been a long time coming.


Don Cardi

On that statement, all alone and by itself, I do agree.

Maybe I should have said that Fredo didn't look at it is an act of betrayal or as being a traitor. It's more likely that he looked at it as a way of getting back at Michael by showing him up.

It's true that he was mad at Mike, for he admits this to Mike in Cuba when they are alone having a drink.

But IMO his being mad at Mike was not one where he intentionally set out to betray Mike. His trying to do something on his own was his way of paying Mike back out of anger.

When you love someone, but may be mad at them, you may try to prove them wrong, prove something to them, but not neccessarily look to hurt them while doing so.

But the bottom line for me is that NO ONE will ever convince me that Michael was justified in killing his brother. It was cold. And eventually Michael came to realize that what he did was wrong. In trying to save his family, he lost it.


Don Cardi

You mean you wouldn't rather be discussing hockey?

Just kidding.

One of the questions we need to answer here to effectively deal with the main question is "Exactly what was Fredo told was gonna happen?"

If he was told - as Turnbull likes to joke - that he simply had to open the drapes so that they could take pictures of Kay getting undressed and blackmail Michael with them by threatening to give them to the newspapers, that's one thing.

If Fredo was told that Michael was to be assassinated, that's quite another.

Of course, we don't know what he was told, but I always accepted Fredo's "You guys lied to me" comment at its face value, so we can assume, I think, what he wasn't told.

The only answer available is the one in the alternate script, in which Fredo is led to believe that it would be a kidnapping.

To me, that's bad enough. If that's what Fredo thought was gonna happen, he is guilty of intentional betrayal.

Hey, Plaw, I thought there was a football game on tonight!

OK, Plaw and I disagree, DC and Plaw agree, DC and I disagree, and Apple and I agree. Was that a pig that just flew past my window???

Seriously, How can anyone even question the necessity of Fredo's removal?? I am so SICK of everyone wringing their hands over "poor, weak, helpless Fredo!" Puh-leeze!! He was a jealous and impotent man. He was completely incapable of running his own affairs, and yet he resented that he constantly had to turn to Michael for help. He even needed Michael's man to drag his drunken slut of a wife off of the dance floor!!

He was angry and bitter and, above all, absolutely chartreuse with envy. Never underestimate envy. He set his brother up for some harm (hit or not, he had to know that Roth was up to something bad), then cried about being passed over, his mommy told him he was a gypsy, he didn't have a nice wife like Kay (if he only knew), he only had Mickey Mouse nightclubs, wah, wah, wah.

Then he's shocked when Michael exiles him. And we're supposed to be shocked when Michael has him killed? Of course there was an inherent danger in letting Fredo live out his days rowing Anthony around Lake Tahoe! How do you know that in 3 or 5 or 7 years, Fredo isn't going to get pissy again? Oh, my little brother Mike, he makes me row his whiny kid around all day, and I'm the older brother!! Wah, wah, wah... Then he unwittingly sets up Mary or Anthony for kidnap or murder, by being promised that there's something in it for him.

In that world, treachery can't be forgiven. It's unthinkable. And you all know it. If Fredo and Mike weren't brothers, you wouldn't care that he was eliminated.

Try this one, Apple:

Permit me to make a comparison here.

Sonny had a weakness. He allowed his temper to rule over his reason, and he spoke without thinking - to the detriment of the family - at least once that we know of.

Fredo had a weakness. He was stupid and gullible.

You suggest above that had Fredo's second transgression been similar to the his first - a public disagreement with Michael - that would have been justifiable grounds for killing him.

Well, how about Sonny?

He had a second instance where his tendency to act or speak without fully thinking things through cost the family dearly:

With his beating of Carlo, (Carlo deserving it notwithstanding) he created an enemy within the family, and by doing it out in the open he exposed a ch*nk in the Corleone armor which Barzini was able to exploit, and which ultimately led to his own (Sonny's) death.

So Sonny made two stupid mistakes which put the family at risk.

You argue above that a second stupid, yet simple, mistake, like disagreeing with Michael in public would have justified killing Fredo.

Did Sonny's two stupid, and considerably more serious, mistakes warrant his death as well?

Well, Sonny IS dead...

Look, Fredo was stupid the first time, deliberate the next. The difference is, if Sollozzo came to Sonny with a deal and said, "You're father's being tough on the negotiations. There'll be something in it for you," Sonny would have kicked his Turkish ass right out in the street.

Yes, Sonny brought disaster on the family, and he ultimately caused his own death. That was due to HIS weakness, which was his bad temper. And he faced the ultimate punishment for it. Just like Fredo did.

But there was a time lag between the act and Sonny's death.

If Michael was the Don, would he have ordered Sonny's killing for this second mistake during the lag?

The Don couldn't even bring himself to kill that scumbag Carlo, and you would even think for a second that he'd have Sonny killed??

Absolutely right about the Sollozzo meeting. When Sonny made that slip up and let someone outside the family know what he was thinking, it led to a domino effect of tragedy.

But where was the same effect in the Moe Green incident? When Moe Green angrily rejected Michael's offer (as Michael probably knew he would), Michael had him killed (as Michael probably planned to do all along); and Michael got the casino, just as he wanted.

Yes, you never go against the family, as Michael had warned him. But the whole problem with Michael and the reason I believe he is unjustified is that he NEVER considers how he contributed to or even caused the precipitating circumstances. He never considers his faults, his mistakes, or Fredo's situation.

Michael had put Fredo into a difficult position. Fredo's "psycho boss" was in the room, the one who slaps him around. If Fredo didn't at least give the appearance of smoothing things over with Mr. Moe "Flies off The Handle" Green, then how badly do you think he was going to be slapped around and humiliated when he showed up for work the next morning?

I must say, Sicilian Babe, that I am enjoying this lively debate with you and the others. We'll never persuade each other to come to the other's opinion, but you are keeping me on my toes trying to think of reasons to shore up my stance that are good enough to challenge your reasons for your stance. I am learning how to be stubborn and stick to my guns (might come in handy some day).

I await your counter-argument. Wait, I see that Apple has already provided one (actually, several)...

No, of course I don't. I don't think he would've killed Fredo, either.

But this is really an argument for Apple.

She said that if Fredo publicly disagreed with Mike twice, that would have beem grounds for killing him.

Given the two mistakes I cited that Sonny made, which were more serious than the Fredo-Moe incident, I'm wondering if she thinks Santino deserved to be whacked as well, and if not, why not?

Jeesh, I can't keep up with you people. I write a reply to someone's post and by the time it gets on the board, the message I've replied to is already ten posts back.

This post I'm responding to is probably eleven posts back; but since I already wrote this reply, I'm going to post it anyway:
Why was he not entitled to one? Wasn't he a Corleone brother? Doesn't he work in the family operations? He sat in on the Sollozzo meeting with Sonny and Tom, for goodness' sake. Why do think he was sent to Las Vegas to learn the Casino business in the first place?
How should he have known? No one even told him that Vito was semi-retired until he learned it from Tom. No one told him that Vito had invested his powers in Michael. As far as he knew, Michael was making a proposal to take back to his father -- show dad he had smarts and initiative.

Therein lies the whole problem, a problem precipitated by Michael: Fredo was excluded in a way that he wasn't under Vito. With Michael, he was not only excluded, but dismissed. Is it any wonder that Roth's proposal was so tempting to him? He craved a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, inclusion.
And let's not forget, as Don Cardi has pointed out, that Roth was a business associate of Vito's and a business associate of Michael's. If Michael didn't know at the time that Roth was an enemy, how could he expect Fredo to know? With Michael encroaching on Roth's casino territory in Vegas the way he was, it was only a matter of time before Roth came after him, with or without Fredo's help.

Who was really the danger to Michael here? Fredo, for trying to smooth things out in a hotel room so his boss wouldn't slap him too hard the next day? Or Michael, who tried to usurp the riches of a powerful criminal like Roth? I'd say Michael.

Poor weak Fredo, poor poor Fredo. How do you say it? A real Mishkeena

As for his being impotent, well I don't know about that, after all he was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time!


Don Cardi

You know why poor, dumb Fredo wore a tuxedo when he went for a vasectomy, don't you?

Oh, you don't?

Because he thought that if he was going to be impotent, he wanted to look impotent.

Ewwwww Plaw!

Point is, whether it is friend or foe, you don't tell people outside the family what you are thinking.

And Don Tommasso FINALLY makes an appearance!

I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this great discussion.


Happy New Year Don T.


Don Cardi

Actually, the Fredo's second 'transgression' was far worse than the first. The first (Moe Green) was indeed a 'transgression' if you prefer to use that word. But it was followed by that warning from Michael and did not alter Michael's immediate plans regarding the move to Nevada. The second, despite the warning after the first, was more than a 'public disagreement' it was an outright BETRAYAL that nearly caused Michael's death and irreperable damage to the Corleone Family and yes, it was justifiable grounds for his eventually being killed.

Make all the comparisons you want, to Sonny, to Sicilian Babe's and my personal family, whatever your imagination can drum up. Play all the games you want. Nothing changes the fact that in The Godfather Part II, Fredo was a traitor and Michael had every justification of having him killed.

Apple

To get some rest after suffering a nervous breakdown as a result of allowing his father to be shot down in the street.


Michael was acting Head of the Family by this time. Dispute if you like his plans and methods in dealing with Moe Green. Nevertheless, he was running the family, making the plans and Fredo was out of line to usurp his authority in that room, at that moment, by suggesting his father be contacted.

Therefore, Fredo was the more dangerous of the two.

Apple

Fredo's "psycho boss"? Fredo worried about another beating? THAT'S the problem with Fredo!! How could he disgrace the Corleone's, a legitimate power to be reckoned with, by letting himself get slapped around by a nobody like Moe Greene?!! Just another reason for Michael to be pissed at him. If Fredo really had the interests of the family at heart, he wouldn't have been a drunken philanderer that NEEDED slapping around.

Puh-leeze!! Poor, weak Fredo. If I was Michael, I would've wanted to wring his scrawny neck. The fact that Michael tolerated his behavior as long as he did just showed how much slack Michael cut him BECAUSE he was his brother.

I have to agree with you about that. When watching that scene I've always felt that Michael was both emarrassed and pissed that Fredo, a Corleone, allowed Moe Green to treat him the way that he did.

I also feel that when Michael tells Moe " You straighten my brother out," that he says it not so much in defense of Fredo, but more of a " You straighten MY BROTHER, MICHAEL CORLEONE'S BROTHER around?" It was more a message of "you're disrespecting Michael Corleone by slapping my brother around." then one of " You've disrespected Fredo Corleone."

In Michael's mind, the fact that Moe slapped Fredo around was more of a blow to Michael Corleone's honor, than one to Fredo's own honor.


Poor Fredo. Weak poor Fredo.

Don Cardi

DC, You are soooo bad! Poor Fredo indeed!!

Yes, it is definitely a blow to the Corleone Family for Fredo to be slapped around in public. And we all know that to a Family, losing face is VERY bad.

Now if Sonny were the Don, then we would have seen him beat the shit out of Moe Green in Vegas, slap the hell out of Fredo for letting Moe push him around, then kiss and hug him, and then he would have had Fredo bring those girls back up to the suite.

Now that's my kind of Don!


Don Cardi

I agree: Fredo was a traitor. I don't agree: It was not necessary for Michael to have him killed.

Now, if I may, what "games"? I don't understand

Almost all we do in these threads is ask hypothetical questions about the characters and plot.

Isn't the very title of this thread yet another hypothetical question?

I'm trying to make a point here with my question:

I presented a hypothetical situation in which I asked if had Fredo publicly disageed with Michael a second time, and had those been his only two mistakes, would that have been grounds for his execution?

You had no problem with that hypothetical, and said that it would.

I, of course, don't agree, and I suspected that you didn't even really agree with that yourself.

So I posed a second hypothetical question, in which I pointed out that Sonny had two transgressions, errors in judgement, mistakes, whatever you wish to call them, which were far more serious, IMO, than publicly disagreeing with Michael.

And I asked if, in your opinion, that would warrant the execution of Sonny.

And at that point, rather than responding to the question, you did what? I'm not sure.

If you want to say I'm "playing a game", I might agree. But if I am, I'm playing the same one that you are, I think.

It goes like this:

Someone posts something, and then when someone disagrees they post something else in an attempt to explain that the first poster is being illogical, or incorrect, or whatever.

Am I doing anything other than that?

If you want to say that you don't wish to answer this one - which seems to be what you are saying - I guess I can't make you.

I mean if this question was in a separate thread of it's own.....

I think that's a good idea Plaw. I think that you should start a new topic asking the hypothetical question " Would Michael have killed Sonny if...?"

That just might make for another good discussion.


Don Cardi

Let's see if I can wring an answer here out of Apple first, otherwise, I will.

I think it will be hard to start a thread based on the premise that if Fredo had disagreed with Michael in public twice that would have been grounds for killing him.

Who is gonna agree with that?

And I wouldn't expect anyone to agree either that Sonny should have been killed on the same basis - two transgressions, albeit more serious ones with more far reaching consequences than the hypothetical Fredo scenarios.

I don't see much of a discussion here, to tell you the truth.

I agree 100% here with DC about why Michael was pissed that Fredo got slapped around.

But SB, you suggest in your post above that Fredo "let" himself get slapped around.

What was Fredo supposed to do?

He was in Moe's hotel, Moe was on his home turf, and Moe was a far more powerful person in Las Vegas than Fredo, not only physically, but just about any other way I can think of.

At that point, it was even questionable as to who had the more pwoerful family behind him. Seemngly, that one goes to Moe as well.

So what was Fredo to do if he did not want to allow himself to be slapped around?

Slap Moe back and get a good ass kicking for his trouble?

I don't se where he had any options, really, particulalrly in light of the fact that I would say that Fredo deserved the rebuke and probably knew that he deserved it.

I know what it's like to be sitting at a table in a casino and wanting something to drink and not seeing a waitress for who knows how long, especially if you are losing.

What was he supposed to do?? He was supposed to Act like a man! Can you imagine Moe Greene slapping Michael around? I can't. And why not? Was he bigger or tougher than Fredo? No. And yet I would imagine that Moe would be afraid to touch Michael. Of course, I could also never imagine Michael distracting the help in that manner. Which just goes to show that Fredo should have been taking care of business, instead of taking care of business if you know what I mean, and that's why he was a big ol' boat anchor around Michael's neck and Michael was right to kill him.

Well, I don't know.

First of all, contrary to your "No", I would say that "Yes", Moe Greene was bigger and certainly tougher than Fredo.

Second, at that point in the story, when Mike meets Moe, he had not yet nearly established his eventual personal reputation, nor has he restored the Corleone family to their former position of prominence as the leading crimne family in the country. Far from it, in fact.

As Moe says, the perception was that the Corleones were "being chased out of New York by Barzini and the other families" and were perceived as dealing from weakness rather than strength.

And Moe also was bigger than Michael - hell, that's not saying much.....even Kay was bigger than Michael - and, from his NYC backround in a fist fight, very likely tougher

So I don't see that Moe would have necessarily had any fear of touching Michael, either.

Of course, Michael never would've been in any kind of position where Moe had an opportunity or a reason to slap him around, but in the ridiculously impossible event that he was, I don't think Moe would have had any problem in doing so, for exactly the same reasons that he had no problem smacking Fredo.

If we re-examine the situation here, we find that Fredo was in Las Vegas to work directly under Moe while learning the hotel/casino business.

we know that Moe was "headstrong" - his good friend and sometimes mentor Hyman Roth tells us so in GF II, and I can imagine the short-tempered Mr. Greene smacking the hotel chef for putting too many (or not enough, if you prefer) bluberries in the muffins, the casino pit boss for allowing a high-roller to make an ultimately winning bet larger than a table maximum allowed for, the hotel dance director for choreographing a number in which the girls did not display enough cleavage, or the casino credit manager for extending too much credit to a player who succumbs to his mound of debt to the casino and dives underground and disappears.

So even if Fredo had been taking care of business rather than "taking care of business" he might not have been able to avoid Moe Greene's thumb (and other four fingers as well ) forever.

In fact, given Fredo's overall stupidity, if you buy into the idea that a good face slapping was one of Moe's M.O.'s, then Fredo's gaining this particular kind of "hands-on" experience in the hotel/casino business was almost inevitable.

My original question, following your suggestion that Fredo "allowed" himself to be slapped around, was to say that he should "act lke a man"

Then the rest of your post was all Michael, Michael, Michael.

Whatever Fredo did, he did.

Moe, justifiablly or not, then proceeded to slap him around.

What was Fredo supposed to do about it?

Let's not forget, that according to the novel, Fredo used to kick the shit out of Michael when they were kids.

Boy SB, you're really tough on poor, weak Fredo!

I don't think that it's fair to comare him to Michael. They are two different people. Even Sonny was a different person.

Michael would have never let himself be put into that kind of a situation with Moe Green. Because as you correcxtly point out, Michael would never distracxt the help in the manner that Fredo did. Michael was really all business, especially when he was conducting business. He was most like his father.

Now I could see Sonny distracting the help in the same way that Fredo did. The only diffference would have been that if Moe Green even attempted to "straighten" Sonny out, he would have acted like a man and beat the hell out of Moe Green. And that may have caused a different problem for The Corleones.

But Fredo was just not that kind of person. He did not have the personality that either Michael or Sonny had. And being that he did not have that kind of personality. Plaw is right. There really was nothing that Fredo could do in that situation, except to tell Michael how Moe was treating him.

And not for nothing, but it is obvious that someone was reporting to Michael that Moe was mistreating Fredo. So why didn't Michael do something about it?

You know something? The more we discuss Fredo and Michael, I realize more and more what a cold hearted selfish bastard Michael really had become. And I realize even more why Fredo resented Michael the way that he did. When you think about it, Michael really did treat Fredo like shit.


Don Cardi

Sorry for going off topic but, how did Mike know that Moe slapped fredo around?

We are not specifically told, but as DC mentions above, Michael and/or Vito obviously has someone on the hotel premises reporting to them on what was going on.

The book also makes reference somewhere to Tom figuring out that Fredo was in the Don's doghouse because of his carryings-on in Vegas.

Obviously The Corelones had their people in Las Vegas who were keeping an eye on Fredo and what was going on. Basically they had their people in Las Vegas keeping an eye on Moe's hotel because they wanted to take it over.


Don Cardi

How can anyone question the evil -- the needlessness -- of Fredo's removal? How can anyone question the harmlessness of Fredo at this time?

Fredo's relationship with Michael was a LOVE-HATE one, not a HATE-HATE one. He felt envy, resentment, anger AND love, bonding, friendship. We should all listen to Don Cardi more:
Fredo didn't want Michael's position. He wanted a position of his own that garnered Michael's respect. Geez, how many times do I have to tell you people : Michael HAD TO BE IN THE PICTURE for Fredo to realize his dream. He wanted Michael, and the rest of the family, to be proud of him, to acknowledge him, to include him. That's why he NEVER conspired to kill Michael, nor would he ever do so. All the power and position in the world is useless to him if Michael and the Family aren't there to SEE it.
"wah, wah, wah"

As witty as that is, Sicilian Babe, I have to say that I am starting to feel frightened for you. Why? Because you're turning into a MICHAEL CORLEONE!! We must have an intervention! Pray for her soul!

In the boat house, Fredo spilled out an emotional confession of all his pent up reasons for succumbing to Roth's plan. They were very human reasons, probably repressed for a long time. What was Michael's response? Much like yours (only not as witty ): He dismissed them.

Wasn't the whole theme of GF2 to show how Michael had lost his humanity, to show how far into evil this once upstanding young man who wanted nothing to do with the family business had sunk? He murdered a brother who had complex, psychological issues with himself and his dynamic in the family because he failed to see Fredo the human being and saw in his stead just another mafia co-hort.

PREACH ON SISTER CRISTINA

And that is why he is a cold-hearted bastard

AND THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Gangster or not, Michael should not have killed Fredo. Fredo never intended for Michael to be killed AND Fredo would never be a danger again. The traumatic mistake of trusting Roth almost cost Fredo everything. So relieved to be forgiven at Mama's funeral, Fredo would from here on report back to Michael if an enemy (or friend) so much as said hello to him.

But that's only the half of it. Michael by this time viewed everyone as a businessman whose loyalties were based on business. Everyone he dealt with was a criminal. He saw things in black and white: You were either a traitor or not; you were either with him or against him. But there was more to a person than being a businessman or a criminal. Michael turned a blind eye to all shades of grey, all the complexities and dynamics in his and Fredo's relationship. He completely erased from his mind the human face of the issue.

And that was a mistake. He should have preserved a shred of humanity (mercy, sentiment, whatever you want to call it). He needed this to function as a person, even if he was in the mafia. He was still a father, a husband, an uncle, etc., after all. If there was ever a circumstance where it was right NOT to act like a gangster for a change, this was it.

We are dealing with Fredo here. This is not the head of a rival family like Barzini. This is not a big time player like Hyman Roth. This is not a professional conniver. This is not a paid assassin (he can't even hold a gun, let alone shoot one).

If we're debating whether Michael was justified in his own mind for killing Fredo, then we have a pretty empty debate. Michael can think whatever he wants in his own mind: Fredo could sneeze in his direction and he could deem that as valid grounds for killing him. But let's view this as objective people who are not impaired by Michael's paranoia, blindness, ego, and loss of integrity; and I hope some of us (most of us?) will conclude that Michael was not justified in killing Fredo. He should NOT have judged him by the confines of his mafia world, but by the standards of his familial world, which is a more normal and decent world ... And this was a world Michael really needed to keep one foot in, just as Vito had.

Oh I love that! MamaMig, Brother plawrence, Deacon Don Cardi, and I, Sister Cristina, must spread the word... and unite in prayer for Sicilian Babe before she loses her way .

Cristina, your my younger sister, but so is Sicilian Babe, so don't ever take sides against the family again!!


Don Cardi

Fredo was anything but harmless. He showed his true colors when he bitterly told Michael that he resented being passed over and relegated to run mickey mouse night clubs.

Perhaps if Fredo had acknowledged his mistake and sincerely apologized to Michael there could be a case made for clemency, but that didnt happen. In fact Michael had no choice but to take Fredo out. The jealousy was still there, and so was the resentment. It would only have been a matter of time before Fredo betreayed him again. For instance, had Fredo been alive in GF III, who knows what would have happened....perhaps security at the Opera House would be botched and Mary would have ended up dead.

Lucy was spying after him, under Tom's instructions.

According to the book, correct?


Don Cardi

You have to understand that it is impossible to separate the family from the Family. After all, Fredo was responsible for gunmen shooting up Michael's home. It doesn't matter if he knew it was going to be a hit or not. He set up Michael for some sort of harm, because he had to know that whatever dealings he had with Roth and Ola (and they had to be somewhat extensive if he knew who Roth's man was at the senate hearings), he had to realize they weren't coming to Michael's house to deliver oranges.

Fredo put the family and the Family in harm's way. When he revealed his bitterness and envy, he also revealed the fact that, if he wasn't eliminated, he could do so again.

As for my "turning into Michael Corleone", why Thank You, Cristina. Rarely has someone said a nicer thing about me.

Absolutely correct.

I thought the whole idea behind GFII was to show how ruthless and cold Michael had become; that he had "lost his soul." If he was perfectly justified in murdering his brother, doesn't that whole rationale kind of go out the window?

Amen, Dona! That's the single most persuasive reason that I think Michael was wholly unjustified in killing Fredo, and I really believe that FFC crafted Fredo's death and the closing scene to drive that impact home to the audience.

Why did the murder of Fredo haunt Michael for the rest of his life if Fredo was so dangerous that "he HAD to go"?

Michael was never troubled for a moment by the killing of long-time associate Tessio; the killing of his father's colleague, Roth; the killing of brother-in-law Carlo -- and understandably so, because these men were true traitors who meant to kill Michael or who had already killed someone in Michael's family. Why did Fredo's death feel so different, so tragic? The flashback scene alone made it undeniable to me that Michael regretted the act the moment it was committed, and the film ended on the sombre note that a terrible, irrevocable mistake had been made.
Excuse me? HYMAN ROTH was responsible for gunmen shooting up Michael's home. Do you think Hyman Roth would have given up on his assassination attempt on Michael if he couldn't get Fredo on board? Absolutely not. He would have found another time or place.

Fredo is not the enemy here, people. Weak, bumbling Fredo, who wanted to earn a bit of self-respect and who wanted some brotherly respect, lacked the savvy to be skeptical of all criminals bearing gifts. I'm convinced it would have been a lesson he would never have forgotten had he lived; and hence, he would never be a danger.

The danger is a career criminal like Hyman Roth who wouldn't bat an eye to murder a rival and that rival's wife and small children if they happened to be in the way. The danger is Michael himself for crossing powerful and unscrupulous gangsters like Roth and trying to edge in on their territory. But, of course, Michael rationalizes and is blind to his own mistakes; therefore, he blames Fredo. Don't fall into his trap! dontomasso, you've just proven my point! Gunmen weaved their way around the Opera House and Mary did end up dead even though Fredo had nothing to do with it. The stupid and dangerous one was Michael, who continued to alternately court, defy, and challenge ruthless mafia kingpins. Furthermore, he attends the opera after being warned that an assassin is pinpointing him and he surrounds himselft with his whole family, not even bothering to warn them.

Now tell me again that Fredo is the one he needs protection from. No, Michael does fine putting putting his and his family's lives in danger all by himself.

Uh oh. Does this mean you're planning a fishing trip for me?

It's the way pop wanted it.


Don Cardi

Sorry, Cristina, I don't buy the whole weak-and-dumb-Fredo thing. He was a detriment and he needed to be eliminated, or he could have caused harm again in the long run.

And, yes, it haunted Michael for his entire life. It was the one thing that he couldn't live with, but I don't think that he missed Fredo. I think it was because he was so haunted by the fact that, although he hoped to follow in his father's footsteps, he became a completely different man, lacking Vito's warmth. Somehow, he had grown in power without holding onto the love that Vito could inspire.

If you remember his confession in GF3, or his little speech at Don Tomassino's coffin, that was his regret - that he had disappointed his father, that the man that he had become would've broken his father's heart. In his confession, he doesn't say, "I murdered my poor weak and defenseless brother who I loved so much." He says, "I killed my father's son." To me, that is his true remorse, and IMHO, supports my theory that, even though he loved his brother, he realized the necessity of his elimination for the long-run protection of the family.

When he kneels at Don Tomassino's coffin, he doesn't ask how he could've killed his brother. Fredo never enters into it. He asks why he (Don Tommasino) was so loved while he (Michael) was so feared. I also believe that in the scene, he is actually speaking to Vito.

OK, the following should settle this whole debate. (Ha ha ha . I hope you enjoyed the joke.)

This is something I've written before in another discussion(s), so excuse me for boring you if you've already read it. I believe FFC's intention -- through the theme and tone of the final scenes -- was to show us that Michael was horribly wrong and culpable in killing Fredo. Fredo was not as a jealous plotter in the vein of Macbeth or Marc Antony, but an inconsequential man trying for once to achieve a taste of significance, and learning painfully that he should not have tampered with his destiny of ordinariness.

(1) The ending murders of GF2 have a common thread: all the victims were real or percieved enemies of Michael's who are now either so powerless, afraid, or changed in attitude toward him that it's unnecessary to kill them. Roth is terminally ill and will die in prison. Pentangeli, after seeing how Michael could reach his brother, is so terrified for his family that he'll leave the Corleones alone forever. I've always believed that if these two men had been left to live out their natural lives, they would have been no threat to Michael. I think the same thing has to apply to Fredo in order for his murder to fit thematically with the others.

(2) As Dona pointed out, when Michael has Fredo killed at the end, we are meant to see this as the climactic unspeakable act and the prime illustration that Michael has become the worst evildoer of them all. I think the singular crime of killing one's own blood -- of even considering it -- is meant to be Michael's alone, the crowning tragedy of his criminal life. If I believed Fredo were capable of doing the same thing -- whether he intended it earlier with Roth, or would do it in the future -- then this would dilute the dramatic focus on Michael's downfall.

(3) To those of you who believe that Fredo DID intend to kill Michael and therefore DID have to be eliminated because he would try it again, how did you feel when you first saw the ending of GF2? Didn't you feel sadness? Did you find it troubling or unsettling? In the flashback scene where you saw Fredo once bantering with his brothers, and now forever silenced, did you perhaps find that painful or haunting?

Maybe you did, but you still believe that Michael couldn't afford to be sentimental: it had to be done and Michael had no choice. But aren't those feelings of regret or sadness an indication in themselves that something was "off" about Fredo's death, that it really "didn't have to be done"?

But it ain't the way I want it! I can buy my own fish at the grocery store. I can handle that! I'm smaht!

Now here's a topic where we have over 100 posts, and only 11 persons voted. Come on, people! Get out and vote .

Also, one of you (who may or may not be reading this) made a mistake on your vote. If you answered "No" to Question 1, then you are supposed to answer "No" (the first choice) to Question 2.

You answered "No" to Question 1 (Fredo wouldn't betray Michael again, neither on purpose nor by accident). But when you got to Question 2, instead of picking the first response (I voted "No" to Question 1), you voted on your opinion as to How Fredo would betray Michael again. Doesn't make sense if you originally voted that he wouldn't betray Michael again at all.

So moderators, can you help me out here? If someone wants to change his/her vote, is it possible that you can take out that person's original vote, thus allowing him/her to vote again (only correctly this time)? Of course, I assume that the person would have to PM you first and let you know.

And I can't believe that half the people think Fredo would do it again! When the moderator posts back on how (or if) you can change your vote, I hope you all will take advantage of those instructions and vote the right way instead .

Cristina, Are you, by any chance, a nun?? That last post of yours seriously reminded me of my Catholic school education!

As to your other post, no, I don't believe that Michael's feelings of regret are because he truly didn't have to do it; I believe he regrets that he HAD to do it. He had a very different future planned. He wanted something else for his life. I believe that he was sorry for choosing a life where he would be forced to make a decision about his brother's life or death - not the decision itself. A fine line of distinction, but a definitive one.

As for Pentangeli, I don't believe that Michael brought his brother to court to frighten him. I think that Michael speaks the truth when he says that "it was between the brothers". Vincenzo Pentangeli's presence reminded his brother about the oath of silence that they had taken. And this is supported by Tom's statement (in Sicilian) to Vincenzo about the honor of the family being intact after Frankie refuses to testify. However, Frankie still needs to be punished for his transgression - even he realizes it. He is the one that proposes his suicide to Tom in exchange for his family being taken care of. And he doesn't seem terrified to me, only resigned.

And Roth? Sorry, Roth had to die. No two ways about it.

Personally, I think the discussion itself has become far more interesting than the simple vote. Which is why I never bothered to cast a vote in the first place.

However...I'd bet my Godfather paperback that half the people that voted DO think that Fredo would have eventually betrayed Michael again.



Apple

If you want to talk about changing votes and fixing them, then you need to pop on over to the GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD where there are lots of debates about fixing votes to win and voting for things before voting against them.


Not any of our Pisans. Give it to a Jew congressman in another district.


Don Cardi

Sure, bigshot! Placing a wager with soemnthing that is of no financial risk to YOU at all.


Don Cardi

Don't worry Don C....even if I lost, am almost finished with the book anyway (am just up to the part where Dr. Jules is discussing Nino's 'health' with Johnny Fontaine).

So no matter what, you've got your money's worth!!



Apple

I Did?


Don Cardi

Don Cardi, about the voting, I wasn't inquiring about fixing votes or changing other people's votes (with or without the help of moderators). Honest, that wasn't my intent!

What I was asking is this: Can a person change his/her OWN vote in a poll (not someone else's)? Suppose I voted in a poll and I later wanted to change my vote and vote differently. Unlike a post, which I can edit, clicking on a "vote" button gives the message "You've already voted" and doesn't allow editing.

I figured if a person DID want to change his/her OWN vote, he or she would have to PM a moderator and request that it be done. But is that allowed, or can it even be done?

You mentioned putting this in the General Discussion thread, but doesn't it go in the Feedback/Help thread, which is specifically about the board?

Now you people who believe that Fredo would always be a danger and therefore had to be killed, how do you argue against THAT?

Cristina, you take things too serious. My post about fixing votes and telling you to check out the GENERAL DISCUSSION Thread was a joke. We talk politics over there and the issue of fixing elections, swaying votes, etc. has been discussed. I wasn't being serious.


Don Cardi

Oops! I thought that WAS about the board and ways to tweak the votes.

I should have known this board was run too securely and professionally for hackers or computerphiles or other quick witted types to play around with the polls.

So how does someone change his/her vote? Has anyone ever wanted to do that before?

There is no way of knowing if Fredo would set Mikey up again... but you cant chance it.

FWIW - Fredo wanted what Mikey had... so he would IMO set him up again

Nevermind

You just don't have your own brother killed. Especially one like Fredo. That was cold and heartless. He killed his mother's son, he killed his father's son.

Let me ask you this : Do you think that Vito would have had his brother killed had he been put into the same situation?

Fredo would definitely have done it again. I may be repeating myself here because I don't want to go back and reread what was posted, but I think that, until the boathouse, Michael was willing to believe that Fredo was duped. He innocently talked too much to the wrong people.

But in the boathouse, Michael finally sees that Fredo is MAD. He's angry and resentful of Michael's success. He can't be angry at his father, because he loved Vito too much, but he truly believes that he was capable of taking over the Family, and that Michael was pushed ahead of him. He's FURIOUS at this, and his jealousy would have caused him to try and set Michael up again one day. He was not only envious of Michael's position and power, but his marriage and children, too.

Michael killed Fredo to protect all of his interests, personal and business, since they were intertwined. It was the one sin he committed that he couldn't live with, but it was necessary.

Fredo would have done it again except there would be no one stupid enough to use Fredo to get to Mike.

That's where I come out, SB. Michael may have been willing to give his brother a pass prior to that scene. He might have been persuaded that Fredo's stupidity made him a victim of Roth's guiles and an "unwitting" participant in the hit attempt. But the outburst showed Michael all the pent-up rage and resentment Fredo had been harboring, was still harboring--and no doubt would have continued to harbor as long as he was alive. No way he could have felt safe forever.
DC, I agree with you that Michael's "forgiving" Fredo and keeping him at the compound was supremely cold-hearted and manipulative. But that was Michael.

I don't know here. I'm 50 / 50 on this. After Mike "forgives" Fredo at his mother's wake, Fredo seems at ease (which was Mike's intent of course). Part of me believes that Fredo felt that Mike was sincere in forgiving him, and that he was finaly off the hook. At that point I don't know if Fredo would have taken another opportunity to go against Mike, or do something behind his back again. I think that Fredo realized that he was duped the first time, and was too scared to ever let himself get duped again into doing something behind Mike's back.

And in my thinking this way, the question is, did Fredo intentionally set up Mike, or did he really think that he was just spiting Mike and getting even with him by trying to make a deal on his own?. Personally I think that he was fooled by Ola and Roth. I don't believe that he ever intended to have Mike physically hurt. His dealing with Ola was more out of anger of being passed over and he thought that it was his chance to finally show Mike that he was smart and could do things on his own. I don't think that there was ever a intent on Fedo's part to physically hurt Mike or help have him killed. Fedo had too much of a heart to go that far. And that is why I think that Fredo learned his lesson and would never make that mistake again concerning Michael's well being.

Michael was a son of a bitch to have Fredo killed.

I agree that Fredo was duped. However, Michael realized after the boathouse seen that Fredo was a ch*nk in the Family's armor. To allow him to live, he would have left the Family, and subsequently his family, vulnerable to another attack. Remember, although Michael forgave Fredo, how much longer until that resentment built up again? Oh, sure, let Fredo take Anthony fishing. Oh, sure, make Fredo stay at the compound all the time. Oh, sure, even Connie is making decisions, while Fredo becomes the babysitter!

Fredo's guilt is apparent in the Havana scene. He questions why he and Michael never had more of those talks, spent more time together. Obviously, he is thinking that his brother's love is apparent to him for the first time (You're no gypsy, Fredo) and thinking to himself, Ah! If I had only known!

No, he was a lousy cold hearted bastard

Fredo says that Michael was being tough on some negotiations and that Ola proomised Fredo there would be something in it for him if he could get Michael soften up. He then says he "didn't know it was going to be a hit." So taking Fredo at his word, what did he think? Was he supposed to go to Michael and say, "Hey Mikey, I hear you are being tough on some negotiations with Hyman Roth, why don't you ease up?" I can imagine how that one would go over. Which brings us back to the drapes. "Open the drapes the night of Anthony's Communion party and that will make Mike come to his senses about the negotiations?" Was Fredo THAT stupid?

Good point SB. Fredo seems outright angry when he says "Why didn;t we spend time like this before," and "I wish I'd married a woman like you did." (BTW is this some clue about Fredo's sexuality? I wish I married a WOMAN???? Was Deanna a drag queen?)

But we don't know if it was Fredo who opened the drapes. I believe that FFC would have made it a point to let us know at some point if it was Fredo.

I just think that he was dumb and really did not think that there was going to be a hit attempt on Mike. He even confirms this in his telephone conversation with Ola. "You guys lied to me."

Fredo was just stupid.

Now if Mike had him killed because he felt that Fredo's STUPIDITY could be a threat to his life, then that's a different story. But after Fredo's outburst I believe that Michael took it as if Fredo INTENTIONALLY set him up and betrayed him knowing that an attempt was going to be made on his life and that is why he had Fredo killed.

I think that Fredo's stupidity is part of it. Fredo was stupid, envious and resentful, a very dangerous combination. I don't believe that Michael thought of his brother as a killer. I think that when he saw the depth of Fredo's anger in the boathouse, combined with how gullible he was, he knew that the combination could prove lethal. And that's why he had to have his brother eliminated before he could do harm again.

Something else sticks in my craw re. the Havana scene:
In the boathouse confrontation later, Fredo says, "I swear to God I didn't know it was going to be a hit. Johnny Ola bumped into me in Beverly Hills...he said there'd be somethin' in it for me..." Sounds like the kind of simpleminded, impulsive, greedy move that a dunce like Fredo would have taken, without thinking of the consequences.
But then I'm reminded of the Superman scene in Havana. How did Fredo find the place? "Johnny Ola brought me here...old man Roth would never come here but Johnny knows these places like the back of his hand." So now I infer that Fredo didn't just "bump into" Ola in Beverly Hills. It wasn't just some spur-of-the-moment decision. Evidently he was, unbeknownst to Michael, meeting with Ola (and probably Roth) in Havana previously. What were they doing in Havana--tarpon fishing? Visiting sex shows? Or, were Ola and Roth showing Fredo the empire that Fredo could run once his brother was out of the way?

Both

Good point Turnbull. But then again we don't know if they were fooling Fredo into believing that if he helped them out, things would work out for the Corleones and Michael would realize that it was Fredo who was instrumental in making things work and then would have to reward Fredo for "doing a good job." Or perhaps they fooled Fredo into thinking that if he helped out, they would make sure that Michael would give him a piece of the pie.

There are so many scenerios that we can create out of the Fredo situation, but I guess we'll never really know.

I just cannot believe that Fredo KNEW that they were going to hit Mike.

Good points by both of you guys! But, I have to go with DC when I say of course Fredo had no idea it was gonna be a hit, otherwise, why would FFC show us the scene with Fredo in the bed on the telephone being scared and remorsefull??? There was no one there but him (except his loser wife). He has no reason to put up a "front". He's seriously remorsefull and was completely oblivious.

Well, we can agree on that point. To me, though, that's what makes Fredo all the more dangerous to keep around.

I still don't understand what it was Fredo thought he was going to do to get Mike to go easy on the "negotiations." It is even more perplexing that Fredo seemed legitimately clueless about the family making an investment with Roth in Havana. What other "negotiations" were going on? It wasnt over the Tropicala because Ola already told Mike that Roth gave the ok to the deal.

It could have been over the Tropicala. We don't know how long ago Fredo "bumped into" Ola. But, really, I doubt they told Fredo, and I doubt he even thought to ask. He was blinded by the opportunity to make something on his own.

The late-night phone call shows that Fredo realizes he was lied to, making it likely that he didn't know it was a hit. But the question remains: What information did Fredo provide Roth, and how could he have possibly thought it would have helped in a negotiation?

Yes. A constant theme in the Trilogy is "carelessness" (Vito's term) caused when greed, lust for revenge, yearning for power, etc., lead people into idiotic mistakes. Logically,did Paulie think he could get away with calling in "sick" on the day Vito was shot? Did Carlo think that the family wouldn't connect his beating of Connie with Sonny's assassination?
And did Fredo think that whatever "help" he gave Roth and Ola wouldn't result in harm to his brother? Did he care?


Maybe. But the "lie" he protested also might have been an earlier assurance by Ola that the hit would be neat, clean and successful.

Well, that's one of two closely related, long-term $64,000 unanswered questions on these boards. The other is: who killed the Tahoe shooters?

[quote=TurnbullWell, that's one of two closely related, long-term $64,000 unanswered questions on these boards. The other is: who killed the Tahoe shooters? [/quote]


Not to mention how they could tell the shooters were hired out of New York.

Not to mention how they could tell the shooters were hired out of New York. [/quote]
Rocco found Metrocards in their pockets.

Rocco found Metrocards in their pockets. [/quote]

I was gonna say that!!

I was gonna say that!! [/quote]


Back in the '50's it would have to have been subway tokens.

I think Mike knew before the boathouse scene that he was going to have to get rid of Fredo. He only went in their to get information about Roth and the investigation IMO.

"Fredo... dont ever take sides against the family again... EVER!" - I think Mike really meant it and was letting it be known that he would pay for that.

In Mikes mind... Fredo had betrayed Mike more than just the shooting in his bedroom.... w/ Moe Green etc...

It was him or Fredo. He chose to live. Thats about all their is to it.

15-cent tokens at that. Maybe the gunmen had "Miss Rheingold" subway cards on them.

This is an AMAZING discussion. I would have never thought that Fredo had different intentions than those he signaled in the boat house to Mike. But...after Fredo tells Mike that he didn't know it was going to be a hit, Mike asks him...you believed that story? Fredo's reaction is... they said there was somethin' in it for me. I sense that this suggests that Fredo's logic about the hit on Mike was clouded by his own greed.

However...I do not think that Fredo would have done it again.

Granted...he might have slipped up again had Mike not killed him. But...Mike sure killed him.

He told Mike that he didn't know it was going to be a hit. I "believe" him.