"You Have To Answer For Santino, Carlo."

I still don't get it. Between the novel and the film, I don't see how Carlo planned this. I mean, the fight Connie and Carlo had that day was completely spontaneous - Carlo's mistress called the house, Connie answered the phone, and she started in on him (starting with barging in on him while he's in the shower -*deleted scene).

So, for a whole year, based on Carlo's purchance to hitting his wife and having Santino find out about it, Barzini's people planted themselves at the Jones Beach Causeway? I mean, Santino left the mall many other times (to visit Lucy Mancini, for one), so Barzini's people could have ambushed him anytime he tried to leave Long Beach.

Just seems a terrible coincidence. Not even the novel goes "into it."

But it's all clarified when Carlo admits his guilt at the end, so it doesn't really matter, does it?

But I do agree that it was more dumb luck that enabled the shooters to get to Sonny that day, than it was any great planning on Barzini's part.

Sure, Carlo admitted it. But maybe only as a grasp for life, to tell Michael what he wanted to hear? Much like Tim Robbins did in Mystic River, telling Sean Penn what he wanted to hear, even if it was not true.

Either way, yeah.

I guess anything is possible if we deconstruct it enough which is why this board is so much fun.

But in this instance I think that it was pretty clear that Carlo was guilty. Per both the book and from Connie's rants in the movie it was something that everyone in the family (and the Family??) knew and didn't talk about.

Remember in the book even when the Don is giving Hagen directions for a post-peace setup Hagen thinks to himself that there is something really terrible that the Don does not mention. So everyone knew-especially since they weren't the sort of people who put much stock in accidents.

Now that said it does seem pretty out there that Carlo knows on this particular day he is to beat the **** out of Connie and then Barzini's men know that Sonny will be taking this particular road. I know it's been discussed before but maybe some East Coast members can let us know how likely it was that Sonny would take that path.

A LOT of things had to be planned and go just right for the successful hit but then again that's what let the Don know he was up against more formidable opposition than first thought.

But like any predator Barzini only had to be right one time. Sonny let his guard down and that was that.

I think Michael wanted the confession from Carlo either to ensure beyond all reasonable doubt that the murder of his sister's husband was the right thing to do OR just because he really was a cold SOB and wanted to see Carlo squirm. The thing with the airline tickets is always funny in a black humor sort of way..." No really Carlo, look here are some tickets we bought for you"...

That fight was NOT spontaneous. The first fight was spontaneous. When Barzini saw that it flushed Sonny out of hiding and made him act irrationally (beating Carlo), all he had to do was approach Carlo to set Sonny up.

Barzini had Carlo bait Connie into another argument. Carlo didn't even have to have a mistress, they could have had one of Tattaglia's girls call, pretending to be looking for Carlo. Then Carlo does the thing with dinner, Connie throws the dishes, he beats her, she call home, and before you know it, Sonny's on the causeway.

That's it exactly, SB. Easy to set up, knowing what Sonny did the first time. And, since the compound was on Long Beach (an island),
"the causeway" would be the only route that Sonny would take. So, they prompted Carlo to beat Connie, knowing she'd call the Mall. Carlo would have heard her call. Soon as she hung up, he called his contact with Barzini and they moved men into position.

so then Barzini alone is to blame for setting that fight up. It wasn't Carlo's doing. I don't get how Carlo got with Barzini in the first place. If Barzini approached Carlo, what do you think was said, and what is Carlo's accruptibility (real word?)

The novel says that Vito told Tom never to give Carlo anything significant in the family. Carlo was set up with a "living"--a bookie operation. And he and Connie didn't live at the Mall. He was already bitter about the way the family treated him. So, after Sonny beat up Carlo, it probably didn't matter what Barzini promised him--he was ready for revenge.

but Carlo didn't initiate the fight on his own! The fight was initiated by Barzini.

I know all the bitterness Carlo felt, but I don't think Carlo wanted anyone killed.

Carlo knew Barzini wasn't going to hold hands and sing "Amazing Grace" with Sonny.

Sonny publicly humiliated Carlo. He took his "manhood" away. Carlo was supposed to be handsome, big and fancied himself a tough guy. Sonny showed him that no one is exempt from an a$$-kicking.

So Carlo would have wanted revenge. From his POV he gets ignored or disrepected by his in-laws at family gatherings (told to go sit with the women and children), given a mickey-mouse job, is not allowed to live at the mall and then after what he sees as a private dispute with his wife , gets curb stomped by Sonny in front of his co-workers, employees and the entire neighborhood with no one lifting a hand to defend him.

That would make anyone amenable to listening to someone who could promise revenge.

Carlo didn't offer any explanation when Michael came into the room like Death itself. Maybe he could have softened Michael with a plea as to why he did what he did. Maybe it wouldn't have helped, maybe it would have. (Personally, I think Carlo would have been wasting his breath.)

I think Carlo meant to offer a defense, but Michael then said, "get out of my sight." So that was that.

Carlo found an excuse to beat the crap out of Connie, knowing after Sonny's warning that Sonny would come after him bigtime. So it really doesn't matter if he or Barzini initiated THAT fight, or ANY fight that got Sonny out of the house. It was all part of the SETUP to get Sonny, and Carlo took part in the SETUP.



Even if that were true (what do you think he thought would happen?)...it really wouldn't matter because he SET UP Sonny for Barzini's men.

Years later in GFII, Fredo worked with Roth against Michael not knowing that a hit was being planned. Didn't matter, and it didn't even matter that the hit on Michael was unsuccessful. He betrayed his Don, he betrayed his brother, he betrayed his Family.

That's what Carlo did.

If anyone is to blame for Sonny's murder, it's Connie. Shit, if my wife busted up the house like that, I'd beat her too.

I can just imagine his defense had the conversation continued:

"I didn't know it was gonna be a hit Mike -- I swear to god I didn't know it was going to be a hit. Emiliano Barzini bumped into me in Bensonhurst -- and he said that he wanted to talk -- he said that he and -- and -- Tattaglia were in on a -- a -- big deal together. And that there was something in it for me if I'd help 'em out. He said that -- he said that -- Sonny was bein' tough on the negotiations. But if they could get a little help -- and close the deal fast -- it'd be good for the family."

"You believed that story. You believed that."

"He said there was something in it for me -- on my own."

"The Family's always given you a living, Carlo."

"Given me a living. You're my kid brother-in-law and you take care of me. Did you ever think about that -- did you ever once think about that. Send Carlo off to do this -- send Carlo off to do that! Let Carlo take some bets from somebody. Let Carlo handle some policy bank in Harlem! I was stepped over!"

"That's the way Pop wanted it."

"It ain't the way I wanted it!"

Something tells me that Michael wouldn't be moved by that defense.

lol.

With that said, do you think Mike was a bit rash eliminating his brother Fredo? Obviously Fredo didn't want Mike and Kay murdered (right?)

This is a subject of much debate on these boards.

Personally, I didn't think killing Fredo was right or even necessary, but I think I'm in the minority around these parts.

If it had been a 'rash' decision, then Michael would not have been willing to wait until after their mother's death for Fredo to be eliminated. It was very well thought out, and even with (probably) several weeks or even months during with to change his mind & spare Fredo, he did not do so.

Nothing 'rash' about it....

Bingo, Lilo. The novel even points this out. I don't have it in front of me, but the gist of it was that unlike Hagen, Genco would have realized that Carlo, being a Sicilian, would some day want revenge for the beating he took from Sonny. That had to be the basis for Carlo's betrayal, more so than any financial reward or future promises from Barzini.

Buttmunker, have you read the novel?

We usually try not to mix the book with the film here (that's why there's a novel thread), but sometimes it's necessary. Personally, even if I'd never read the book, I'd think Carlo to be as guilty as sin. But if you do read the book, you can't possibly come away thinking that Carlo was just a pawn in the whole thing. He was a scumbag, pardon my French, and for me, watching him get the life choked out of him is one of the most satisfying moments in film history. And I'm a pacifist!

I"ve read the novel. But even the novel does not go into Carlo's cultability. It's all very vague.

but you gotta admit Carlo was bamboozled with a pain in the ass wife.

Michael: "Who approached you, Tattaglia or Barzini?"

Carlo: "Barzini."

Also, his beating at Sonny's hands has done the trick. He lived in fear of Sonny and never touched his wife again until that night. So, Carlo must have known that he could once again beat his wife because Sonny would be dead soon after.