I was watching my tape of The Godfather Saga, the part where Deanna is drunk while dancing with Merle at Anthony's First Communion Party. A band of professional musicians is playing the dance music. Then I became aware of something I never noticed before despite my multiple viewings: While Rocco tells Fredo that he'll have to take care of Deanna, I hear a trill from a harmonica -- playing over the band, not as a part of it.

Just prior to that, when Fredo pulls Deanna aside and scolds her for being drunk, it looks like she has something long and silvery in her hand -- a harmonica?

I don't know if this harmonica sound is just in the saga and was edited out of the theatrical movie, but I'll paraphrase a quote from Jerry Seinfeld and ask, "Deanna's harmonica -- what's up with that?"

Cristina, we do hear a harmonica (although we don't see Deanna playing it), and yes, the item in her hand looks like it could be a harmonica. But it wasn't in her hand when she was dancing with Merle, and when she flopped on the floor. Then it suddenly materializes when she gets lifted off the floor. Where did it come from? And why would Deanna have a harmonica? This is a case where 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4.
Another guess: In a deleted scene, we see Fredo and Deanna show up for the party in Fredo's '56 Mercedes 300SL Gullwing coupe (he must have been doing very well in the Mickey Mouse nightclub business!). They're in the midst of a big fight, and Deanna throws something at Fredo, that he catches. I think it was her clutch bag pocketbook. The item in her hand later on the dance floor looked a bit thin for a clutch bag. But, if it was a bag, and Fredo'd been holding it for her ever since they'd arrived (a neat symbol of Fredo's hen-pecked relationship with Deanna), then it'd be more logical for him to hand it to her when he tried to march her off the dance floor, than for her to suddenly have made a harmonica materialize.

I'll have to look out for the sight and sound of this 'harmonica' next time viewing the Saga. In any case, sounds like a classic instance of several takes/cuts of a scene edited together without attention to some of the extremely minor details.

On a network I happen to watch occassionally, it's also known as a 'Nick-at-Nite Rewind'...where a scene from a show is replayed to outline some kind of editing flaw that doesn't effect the overall episode. (Such as a glass being half empty and seconds later filled to the top.)

There's stuff like this in almost every film in existence. GF is no exception.

Apple

That's the most likely explanation. Still, Cristina raised a good point. You have to wonder what they were thinking...

A mistake in The Godfather is in the scene were Micheal has dinner with Sollozzo and McCluskey..
When he shoots McClukskey in the troath you get another shot (movieshot) and you see already a bullet in McCluskey's head, before MIke shoots him in the head....

That's not a bullethole - it's some sauce from the veal because McClusky was a sloppy eater.

Apple

Maybe it was one of Deanna's "toys." After all at that moment she makes some kind of snide coment that Fredo isn't a "real" man.

Yes, I noticed that too, so I watched the scene again. When Deanna falls down drunkenly, it looked like the harmonica-like object was already lying on the floor behind her (but then again, my eyes could be deceiving me). My first thought was that she probably picked it up, and that's how we see it in her hand when Fredo grabs her.

I was wondering if that harmonica was left on the set (during a previous scene? by one of the "First Communion" children?) and if the actress portraying Deanna decided to improvise with it: Show what a drunken clown Deanna is by having her blow on a harmonica she picks up off the ground. What a classy broad . Too bad they forgot to take a shot of her actually playing it.

I'd still like to know if that little gaffe was caught in the theatrical version and edited it out. I don't have the Godfather Part II DVD (or VHS tape). I'll have to rent it from Blockbuster one of these days to see whether it's "harmonica-less."



I thought it was her shoe. If I recall correctly, Fredo then chases her down and forces it onto her foot.

Along those lines Turnbull and dontomasso, I suppose one could surmise that the harmonica is a phallic symbol -- an indication that Deanna, to put it crudely, has Fredo by the balls.

Ah, but Apple, for a Godfather devotee, no detail is too minor.

Well, Michael did say, "I've always taken care of you Fredo."

P.S. You must be a car afficianado as well as a Godfather afficianado.

I know this topic hasn't been touched for a month, but I was watching the Saga (again ), and for the first time I noticed something in the Fredo and Deanna arrival scene: Deanna was the one driving.

I know, I know. You all caught that a looong time ago . I don't know why it dawned on me just recently. But it illustrates a point some of you had made about Fredo being somewhat henpecked. It's not the fact that Fredo wasn't driving that denotes this; after all, it's not unusual that the wife may enjoy driving more than the husband, or that spouses take turns at the wheel. It's also possible that the car was a gift from Fredo to Deanna, so she would naturally want to drive it.

What struck me is the fact that Deanna was so obviously drunk, and Fredo allowed her to get behind the wheel of a vehicle in her intoxicated condition . Soon after, we see Fredo chase down Deanna and force her discarded shoe onto her foot. It makes me wonder why he didn't manhandle her the same way beforehand in order to take the car keys away from her. (Then again, maybe that's what he was trying to do throughout the drive, since we do hear Deanna tell him to keep his "greasy hands" off her. )

It certainly appears that if Deanna wants to drive, she's darn well going to drive whether drunk or sober, and no Fredo is going to be able to stop her. Never mind the injury and damage she might have caused along the way. It's a scene prophetic of Fredo's later line in the movie: "I can't control her Mike."

Although Michael tells him he needn't explain, the viewer can infer a small diminution of respect in Michael's eyes. Fredo does not have the sense of control Michael has, nor the mastery of situations. He lets any ostensibly stronger force bulldoze him. It's a statement not only on Fredo's relationship with Deanna, but also on his character in general.

It just goes to show you what we can observe about people just from the way they drive (or don't drive, as the case may be) ...

It's part of a long, effective buildup of Fredo's weak, ineffectual character that lends power to his near-hysterical outburst in the boathouse ("That ain't the way I wanted it...I'm smart, not dumb..."). In a way, it helps add a bit of complexity: Fredo seems stupid enough to fall for a Roth/Ola scheme that almost ends with Michael's and Kay's death in their bedroom. But it also shows that the constant humiliations he suffered would have built tremendous resentment that might have made his sellout deliberate.

Very well put, Turnbull. On the surface, Fredo seems blithe and uncomplicated. As the film progresses, we become privy to the inner turmoil that's been secretly troubling him. It's another illustration of the psychological depth Coppola infused in the characters.

And, is in reality, Fredo probably carried on with this buildup of indignities until it gradually reached the level of discomfort. He probably wasn't initially sure of what was bothering him until his psyche eventually articulated it for him.

And to think all this fascinating character insight started with a question about a harmonica . AppleOnYa, if you're reading: See, posts about minutiae and minor details ARE valuable in these forums. They can lead to MAJOR discoveries .

Ah, but the interesting thing about Fredo's indignities is that they are self-imposed. He is weak and ineffectual, but instead of looking inward at his own faults, he decides to let the anger and resentment build up against his brother. Seemingly, his anger is directed at Vito (It's the way Pop wanted it, But it's not the way I wanted it), but as Vito's child, he is unable to express his anger at his beloved father. He therefore takes it out on the man who took over that paternal role in his life, just as Connie is. Interesting that they were both angry at Michael for ACTING like their father when he wasn't, yet they both were unable to live without depending on him.

Well... I don't think they're all self-imposed. Yes, Fredo can change some things about himself BUT what he can't change is his I.Q. (that's pretty much set at a young age; it may be possible to gain a few points through study and such, but not significantly); nor can he change what OTHER PEOPLE think of him or how they behave toward him.

I think all of us would naturally feel some resentment or hurt if we weren't accepted for who we are -- for our inherent personalities. Also, sibling rivalry is a common phenomenon, but I don't think a good parent or relative would tell one of the children to change or "to be more like your sister/brother" in order to gain respect. That's a sure way to endanger self-worth, and I think that's what happened to Fredo.

Fredo had several qualities that would have otherwise been valued in the civilized ("non-mafia") world: he was good-hearted (as Michael indicated to Tom), he was unpretentious, he was guileless, he was amicable. But in the criminal milieu in which he was raised, these qualities were deemed worthless; indeed, they were weakenesses.

And his own family didn't bother to hide this from him. We never saw Vito sit down with Fredo and explain why the change of power was being handled as it was. Instead, Michael goes to Las Vegas -- Fredo's area of specialty -- and proposes to buy out Moe Green as part of the future strategy for the family business, all while keeping Fredo completely in the dark until that very moment. In GF2, when Fredo finally blurts out the pent up miseries that caused him to work with Ola and Roth, Michael doesn't hear a word he says. All he focuses on is the betrayal, and immediately makes plans for Fredo's death.

I certainly agree, SB, with your insight that Connie and Fredo (especially Fredo) had unresolved anger toward Vito. But I also think that Michael earned their anger on his own merits. Where Vito said of Connie and Carlo, "Don't interfere" (when actually his interference may have helped), Michael interferes in the extreme, telling Connie who she should (or shouldn't) marry and intimating that he'll cut the purse strings if she doesn't do as he says. Likewise, when Deanna behaves drunkenly at the Tahoe party, Michael certainly doesn't strengthen Fredo's ego by sending Rocco over with an ultimatum (that begins, notably, with the words "Michael says...").

... But then again, examples like the above are probably what you meant when you said that Michael doesn't act like their father would .

Well, SB, the points you brought up have really got me thinking about Fredo and Vito, and I think I'm inspired to start a new thread about their relationship. There's lots of material there to discuss; this was just my "two cents."