Carlo's betrayal

If there is one fault I have to pick about the first film (and may this be the only one!) it is the fact that Carlo's betrayal comes about too quick and out of the blue. It is the same in the novel. I know it adds unpredictability to the story, which makes for tremendous dramatic effect and all, but did we have to learn of it so unexpectedly? When things are toounpredictable, and they do eventually occur out of the blue then they are not as believable--at least for my viewing. Me, I like to have at least some knowledge of the possibility, in this case being who betrayed Sonny.

"Hey, why not kill Carlo? That'll jolt the viewers/readers." Well, yes, it was an unexpected twist, but twists can be too unexpected sometimes. Just my thoughts on this.

Mick

I felt that FFC provided us with a buildup. Notwithstanding his cowardly behavior, Carlo still had a measure of "pride." Following his beating and public humiliation by Sonny, and Sonny's putdown of him at the dinner table after the Don returned from the hospital, we might have expected that Carlo would be thirsting for revenge.
But the clincher came when Sonny was ambushed on the causeway. How did a carload of guys armed with submachine guns, and a toll-taker who was in cahoots with them, know exactly when Sonny was going to get on the causeway? Was it a coincidence that he leaped into his car after Connie called the mall following her latest beating by Carlo? So, when Michael said, "You have to answer for Santino, Carlo," it didn't come as a surprise to me. And it didn't come as a surparise that he was garrotted instead of being taken to the airport. If Michael didn't give old-timer Tessio a pass, he sure wasn't going to let Carlo off the hook.

Another peek at what might happen with Carlo was just after Vito came home from the hospital and all the men were upstairs with the Don in his bedroom. All except Carlo, who was "forced" to sit downstairs with the women (and he wasn't happy about that).

SC- I believe that's where Carlo has the line (to Connie), "Shaddup and set the table." correct?

Thats right, JJ. Just before that scene Sonny told Carlo to join the women. Carlo was fuming.

My question has always been why Tom considered accepting Carlo into the family while Vito wanted to keep him out of the family business? Maybe because he wasn't a Corleone, but then again, neither was Tom (although obviously he had been brought up in the Corleone household)...

Carlo's temper was only rivailed by Sonny's. Except that he was more cunning when he lost it. Where Sonny wanted blood right away when Carlo could wait.

Similar to the idea that Michael always had to get vengeance (i.e. "Bring me Fabrizio...").

Capo,

I think the reason you feel that way is because Carlo was not a main character and we didn't know him as well as the others. However for the reasons TB mentioned, (especially the beating by Sonny), that that would be Carlo's main motivation for betrayal.

He knew he didn't fit in and would never be a part of the family really!!! I think, even tho we know little of him, that Carlo would haven given his eye teeth to become a "real" part of the Corleone family, but just didn't have what it takes. I thought it had a great dramatic affect.

TIS

The reason Tom asked the Don about Carlo was that it was the Don's decision, not Tom's.

I agree with Turnbull, FFC certainly gave us a build up to the betrayal and killing of Sonny!!!
Carlos humiliation and resentment was shown to be smouldering away in the excellent scenes already posted by the other members.
My favourite being when he was sent downstairs 'with the women' while the men talked upstairs in the Dons bedroom. He was all hunched up and sulking on the chair You could just see his resentment smouldering!!!!

FH

Perhaps my question should be then why didn't Vito want to give Carlo a chance?

Exactly Double J, I've wondered that myself. He was good enough to marry Connie and run the small bookmaking business but could go no further with the family...wonder what Vito saw in him 'bad' at the start that others didnt???

FH

It's not explained too well in the movie, but the book talks about how the Don made a check into his background in Nevada and found his character lacking. He didn't fight Connie about the marriage because it's what she wanted and it's just his way to let his children figure out things for themselves, but he didn't trust him enough to give him enough power to do serious damage to the "Family".

I know you weren't replying to me there, but thank you for that. I should have remembered that I read the book

Welcome to the BB too, I haven't seen you around before

FH

I've also read the book ( ) and now that you mention that, I can somewhat remember a sequence like that...

Yes, Irish_Consigliere, welcome!

Yeah, TIS, that pretty much sus my position up too! I think more emphasis should have been put on Carlo's character and his motives, as, after all, his betrayal was perhaps the most significant of the whole Trilogy for me, resulting in the death of Sonny. For a traitor to be a believable traitor and worthwhile to watch, he (or she) needs to be built up so the audience can really feel it when the news hits them.

Mick

I had a quick re-cap on the book since it's a yr at least since I read it!! The only reference I found to Carlos Nevada background was this passage Don Corleone,of course,sent trusted friends to Nevada and they reported that Carlo's police trouble was a youthful indiscretion with a gun,not serious,that could easily be wiped off the books to leave the youth with a clean record..... !!!!!
Another telling chapter later on after the wedding says, And Carlo Rizzi was turning out to be a real loser.He had been fixed up with a nice little business and was running it into the ground.He was also drinking,whoring around and gambling,and beating his wife up occasionally..

Anyway, whatever, I think we all agree he wasnt worthy of the family

FH

I can accept Carlo being involved in the Sonny-whacking (motive-revenge), but what always seemed a little off was the decision by Mike to make Carlo his "right-hand man" when they make the move to Vegas. Up to that time Carlo was on the fringe and now just because he grew up in Vegas, he becomes Mike's assistant. - OR - had Mike made up his mind at this time that Carlo was guilty and this was a ploy to snag Carlo when he is unsuspecting.

It was a lesson Mike learned well from his father; keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

For people who had not read the book, they would probably have not clocked on in the first place that Carlo was involved, as its it not obvious to the first time viewer, so when he is whacked at the end after being made the right-hand man, its comes a fantastic surprise.

But when you watch it again knowing that Carlo is the betrayer its even better cos you can watch Michaels calculation by giving Carlo a false sense of security.

Couple of things, How did Michael piece together the events of Sonnys death when he was in sicily at the time, connies whimpering??, Second did the Don know of Carlo's guilt? thirdly, if they both did, how much restraint did they need not to throttle him on sight.

As we saw, Don Tomassino told Michael that Sonny'd been whacked. Michael probably didn't know the details until he got back to America. But the Don was told by Hagen, who undoubtedly figured the connection between Connie's beating and Sonny's death. Even if Hagen didn't put it together for the Don, that crafty old guy, who never trusted Carlo in the first place ("Never discuss the family business in front of him"), would have figured it out on his own. Then he, and/or Hagen, would have told Michael when he returned from Sicily.
The restraint was calculated. First, as SC said earlier, "keep your friends close--and your enemies closer." Second, "revenge is a dish best eaten cold." Third, some people here believe that the Don couldn't bring himself to make his daughter a widow. So Michael waited until the Don was dead to exact vengeance.

You also can figure that Michael and Vito were using Carlo. When Pulie betrayed the family they whacked him right away to send a message back.

With Carlo they let him live and possibly report back what was going on inside the family. Keep them off guard when he reported back that the family was leaving and that they weren't building up any forces. They thought they had gottten away with something. Made them feel that everything was good and Michael was running. He thought he was in deep and was going places in the family.

The look on his face when Michael tells him that everyone is dead is like no other.

I often wonder if Carlo was smarter and had real balls if he hadn't of broken down so quickly like a baby and confessed. If he just stood up and said hey what are you talking about. I didn't do a thing. Hey, I didn't know anything. They used me and my wife, ect. If Michael would have been so quickly to do him in.

Did Michael need that confession to really know?

According to the novel, yes.

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

I don't think Mikey would have waited for the Don to die. even if the Don live Carlo would have been slaughtered on "THE DAY OF WRECKONING"

More than anything else Vito wanted to protect his FAMILY. If he had returned to full health and found out Carlo was brutally beating Connie -enough to send her to the hospital - he would have given the order to have him whacked himself.

And Sonny was his firstborn - had he found out that Carlo was complicit in Sonny's hit, if he was physically up to it, he would have done a "Fanuccci" on Carlo himself.

Its just when he says 'im happy for you Carlo' and grabs his cheeks, it looks like he doesnt suspect a thing, masterful.

In the movie they made him look absolutely sure of his fact when he went to see Carlo 'you have to answer for Santino, Carlo'

Does eveyone really think Vito knew carlo gave up Sonny to Barzini? I like how the camera panned over to Michael's face when Vito siad "Im happy for you, Carlo."

Didn't use to...but now I believe Vito did know. Remember, prior to that scene Vito and Michael had discussed and planned EVERYTHING that was to happen from the moment Michael took over the business. In this scene after much preparation (including the decision to demote Tom)...they are basically laying the groundwork for what is to come. Everything will eventually fall into placee based on what Michael & Tom present here.

Upon his return home, Michael asked 'What about Sonny; what about Sicily?'. When Vito promised he wouldn't break the peace he made in order to bring Michael home from Italy, he meant to keep to that. But that did not prevent him from discussing with Michael what would happen once he (Vito) was gone.

Another indication is the ride home with Tom after the meeting with the Family Heads after Sonny's death. Vito tells Tom that Sonny could've easily outfought Tattaglia, and he came out of that meeting realizing it was Barzini who was behind everything.

It wouldn't be too hard to figure out that Barzini needed Sonny dead in order for Vito to bend. Even easier to figure out that Sonny is massacred on his way to assist Connie after her hysterical phone call to the mall. Carlo had already expressed unhappiness at not being allowed more involvement in the Family Business. Could Barzini have approached Carlo in order to get Sonny out in the open? Hmmmmmmm.

AppleOnYa

but mike was not around to witness this resentment, it must be that the don worked it out and passed the info on to Mike

Ya think ... ???

In fact, neither was Vito there at the homecoming dinner where Carlo expressed his dismay to Sonny & Tom at not having a bigger role in the Family. Remember also, it was Vito's order (on the day of the wedding) not to give him one.

It might be safe to guess that Carlo's discontent was well known within the Corleone Family.

Like I said...they DISCUSSED, PLANNED for months, probably more like years....prior to the moment when Carlo was named their man in Vegas.

Apple

yeah, yeah, yeah. sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

I just saiud it cos some people suggested that Vito DIDNT know about Carlo

Mike was not planning to strike after Vito died. Even if Vito was alive Mike would still have carried the plan. Vito would just have no part of it

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

However the fact that Vito DID die seemed to make it all the more seemless; less complicated, as now Michael truly was Don Corleone and not running the Family under the shadow (or advisement) of his father.
I suppose Michael would've taken all responsibility for breaking the peace but many may have guessed that Vito had assisted in the planning (which he did).

Except for the killing of Carlo, which I believe as did Connie that Michael would not have carried out until after Vito was gone.

So, had Vito not died and Michael STILL carried out the assasination of the Heads of all the Families, what does everyone suppose the reaction or backlash (if any) would've been? Would it have been the same, not a peep from anyone and all bow down to the all powerful Michael Corleone? Or would another war have started?

Just wondering...

Apple

Well Apple

in the novel, after the massacre, Mike 'released the hounds' on the rest of the caporegimes and such. He had buttonmen killed, and many caporegimes from the Barzini and Tattaglia families went over to the Corleone side when they realized how fruitless it would be to fight back with no leader.

"Can't beat'em, join'em", ya know?

In the end, it seemed everyone bowed down to Michael Corleone.

You make some good points apple. But I think Carlo was gonna get it whether Vito died or not. Connie believes that he would have stopped him. I don't think he would. Sonny's death had to be avenged

damn right it did, a sisters husband is never as important as you're own brother

You make a good point, too. However by the time of Carlo's death it has already been several years since Sonny's murder. This might indicate that as long as he remains comfortably a member of the family, there is no big hurry on serving Carlo his just desserts. In fact the longer the wait, the more sweet the revenge.

I think if Vito had lived another five years, so would have Carlo, working cozily in Vegas while all the time his eventual fate awaited. Michael may have wanted to whack Carlo as soon as it was clear he set Sonny up...but could've been talked out of it & told to wait by Vito, who may not have wanted to be involved in making his only daughter a widow. Patience was a key in Vito's world, and I would guess it became one in Michael's as well.

Just a theory.

Apple

Its a good theory.

question how long was it between the funeral and the baptism? then we'll know just how quickly Mike acted in getting Carlo after Vito went

I would guess it's not too long a time between the funeral and baptism. We know Connie has already had her baby at the time of Vito's death. Even assuming the family had a mourning period before the christening, it probably took place within 6-8 weeks at the most.

Apple

Vito would def. have had Carlo killed, after all he helped kill his son.

Good theory. But still I don't see carlo being alive after the day of reckoning whether Vito lived to move to Vegas or not.

Exactly what do you mean by 'day of reckoning'?

Of course Michael would never confront Carlo about it until he intended to kill him. There's no way you could possibly think he'd get Carlo to admit his guilt, then send him off to Vegas and out of the family business and then wait a few years to do him in....!!!

Of course Carlo couldn't live after the 'day of reckoning'. That's why it had to wait until Vito was gone.

Apple

I think Michael would not have killed Carlo until Vito died. If you notice, Michael didn't do anything drastic until Vito died. I believe that as long as his father was alive, he thought that Vito would always be breathing down his neck, making sure Michael never messed up. Even though I don't think Vito was trying to supervise him-we learn that he does support whatever Michael does when the whole "Tom-your out" scene takes place-but I believe that Michael was so independent, he couldn't really go head strong until he knew he wouldn't be judged.
Maybe that was his way of making sure he would never disappoint his father, as we all know Michael tried his hardest to live up to Vito's expectations and rightfully so.

Nah I don't agree with that, I'd say that he waited for Vito to pass away so that he lived the rest of his life without trouble. And Vito knew this as well. Then after the funeral they would get rid of the other heads of the five families

What I meant by Day of Wreckoning? When Mike ordered the killings of the Heads of the 5 Families as well as Carlo, and Tessio. Whether Vito was alive or not this was going to happen. Mike waited long enough and the time had to come.

Maybe so for the killings of the Family Heads...not so for Carlo & Tessio.

Furthermore, I do not think Tessio/Barzini would've approached Michael for that 'meeting' until after Vito had died.
Per the statement made by Vito at the Family Heads meeting (the ONLY time at that meeting he came raised his voice and exhibited anger)...if any harm were to come to Michael once he returned then all agreements for 'peace' would be null and void. Barzini would not have been stupid enough to break the peace while Vito was still alive.

So if Tessio did not turn traitor until after Vito's death...then he would not necessarily have been killed on that 'Day of Reckoning' had it taken place prior to Vito's death (which I still and not convinced it would have).

Remember, it was Michael, not Vito who was underestimated.

Apple

The question of how the peace between the families and Mike was worked out is a tough one.

The book and movie make it look like they other living capos's from the other families were so afraid of Mike they fell in line. Again this is fiction so it could have been that way.

If we put it in a real mafia context, Mike would have reached out to friendly capo's in the other families and nade accords with them beofre the hit to ensure a smooth transition of power.

Not unlike what Barzini tried to do with Tessio.

Apple? Barzini already broke the peace by sending his people to take over Corleone Family territory in BK which Tessio rules. And this was while Vito was alive.

Oh, sure, B-of-B, I guess so...if you want to call that 'breaking the peace'.

Personally I never thought of it that way.

By Barzini breaking the peace I was only referring to him having Michael killed; the only thing which Vito made clear he would not stand for. So still, the betrayal of Tessio to set up Michael for assasination would not have taken place until after Vito's death.

If you want to get technical though, I suppose you're correct that Barzini, by '..sending his people to take over Corleone Family territory...' would be considered breaking the peace.

A move which apparently Vito and Michael expected or at least were not disturbed by...hence their calm reaction and orders to Tessio and Clemenza to take no acton until after the move to Nevada.
They knew someone within their Family would turn traitor...they only had to wait to find out who it would be.

Apple