As we saw in GF (and read in the novel), Vito was careful never to give incriminating orders, or make incriminating statements, to more than one person at a time—to avoid creating corroborating witnesses who could testify against him if someone he trusted turned rat. Even when only Tom and Sonny were present to discuss the upcoming Sollozzo meeting, Vito merely shrugged when Sonny asked what his answer was going to be.

But in II, Michael gave his order to have Roth’s airplane “met” in the presence of Tom, Rocco and Neri. Further, when asked if he wanted to wipe out everyone, Michael replied, “Just my enemies.” And he said, “If history has taught us anything…it’s that you can kill anyone.” Michael could not have known for certain that Rocco would be killed immediately after whacking Roth—for all he knew, Rocco could have been captured and/or wounded. If he lived, he’d be charged with Murder One, and face the electric chair. Rocco was Clemenza’s man, not Michael’s. And Neri, who was Michael’s man, had pushed past him in his boss’s estimation. How could Michael have known for sure that, facing the chair, Rocco wouldn’t have betrayed him? And if he did, the police would know that Neri and Tom were witnesses when Michael gave the order.

Even our old standby, directorial license, doesn’t really work here: the real drama in that scene was Michael’s humiliation of Tom. Rocco and Neri didn’t need to be in that scene. So, was Michael slippin’?

Well, the truth is TB that none of them can be trusted. i think Mike was looking for suggestions. But directorial license just can't be ignored either.

If you call this slippin', what was the killing of Carlo in the presence of at least seven people, including Michael, Neri, Tom, Clemenza and some soldiers?

He was "slippin," but not the way Vito was. What Sollozzo meant when he made that comment was that Vito had passed his prime, that he was of another age (no drugs, please) and that his power was on the wane ("Five years ago, could I have gotten to him?).

Michael was slippin differently. He had lost his family. He had been betrayed by his own brother and someone who had been something of a father figure. He had no friends, and many enemies, and what he was "slippin" into was paranoia and isolation. He had the good sense to tell only Neri about his plans for Fredo, but when it came to Roth and Pentangeli, all he had left in the world for allies were Tom, Rocco and Neri, and from what others have noticed he wasn't too sure about Tom or Rocco. So what does he do? He humiliates Tom in front of
Rocco and Neri, something that was a lifetime sport for him, and dispatches him to go tell Pentangeli, who was still loyal, to kill himself in exchange for some vague promise that his family would be taken care of. He then maneuvers Rocco into a suicide mission to prove his loyalty, and dispatches Neri to send Fredo to the bottom of the lake.

At the end of GFII he is left alone, embittered, and has only his memories which are shown in the flashback scene. At the end of GF III he is also alone, and a broken man.

If memory serves me correctly, Michael did NOT issue an order, in front of all these people, to have Carlo killed.

And when Carlo was actually killed, it was in the car as it pulled away without Michael being present.

Michael never uttered a death sentence nor took part or witnessed a killing in the presence of all that you mention.


As for TB's question, I think that at that point Michael's paranoia began to somewhat cloud his judgement. At this point I don't believe that Michael was thinking things out as clearly as he once did or should have been. Traitors and enemies began coming at him from all directions starting with the attempted Tahoe hit, and therefore he could no longer trust anyone.

However, on the flip side of that same coin, I do believe that he also was sending a message to Tom, Neri and Rocco in saying what he did in their presence about wiping out all of his enemies. Letting them know that if he even suspected anyone, including them, or anyone in their regimes, of planning to overthrow him or take him out, he'd wipe them out just for thinking it.

I agree with you DC.

Furthermore, Michael's statement that anyone can be killed was also a warning to his lieutentants that he would find a way to get to them if they turned on him.

Also, just before that meeting, a Senate committee had a witness who signed a sworn statement that he killed on Michael's orders. Despite that, the committee ended up publicly embarassed and humiliated. Michael may have felt that, even if Rocco was captured and turned on him, the authorities would be hesitant to attempt to implicate Michael again based on witness testimony.

Ok...
Rocco's killing of Roth at the airport seemed like a suicide mission indeed; there was no elaborate escape plan.
Going back to Michael's conversation with Tom after Lake Tahoe's shooting; Michael states that all his people were businessmen, and that there lied their loyalties.

So how does a man who is categorized by his boss as de-facto a mercenary willingly go on a suicide mission?

As for Michael slipping; I never thought that he followed his father's style of leading the family; he did not hint - actually he was true to his military heritage... that scene where Tom was humiliated seemed very much like a military "situation room"; a General giving his Colonels their missions, and tolerating no one second guessing him.

DW, we've had many interesting discussions here on why Rocco was selected for that mission, and why he agreed to take it on. If you search for them, you might be surprised at some of the interesting theories that people here have put forth.


And yes, there seemed to be no escape plan at all, except for Rocco to run for it. The odds were overwhelming that he'd either be shot dead, or captured alive--and if he were, he'd be convicted of Murder One and sentenced to death. Both he and Michael had to know that, either way, he'd be dead. I still believe that Michael took an awful risk because if Rocco had survived, he'd have been tempted to rat Michael out as an alternative to going to the electric chair.

I don't believe that Michael really cared at that point what the risk was for his hitman nor what the long term implications were for him.

At this point he had been betrayed one time too many - not only by his enemies which was to be expected, but also by his wife, the once-trusted Frank Pentangeli, and his only living brother...the latter two via the clever manipulation of Hyman Roth. Put yourself into Michael's shoes and is it any wonder he would question Tom's loyalty and humiliate him in front of Neri & Rocco the way he did. (But only after Tom's foolish "Do you have to wipe out everybody...?" statement.

Michael knew full well what Hyman Roth had done and had tried to do, the massive damage he had caused even though he lost in the end. And Michael wanted Hyman Roth DEAD. The long term consequences and/or loss of more of his own people, and/or possibility of being fingered by a condemned Rocco or anybody else somewhere down the road was of little if any concern. Roth had to die. Fredo had to die. Was Michael slippin'? Yes, at this point he probably was...but after all that had occurred, why wouldn't he be?

Apple

Your point is very well taken, Apple. But, taking into account the frustration, anger, need for revenge, etc., that Michael felt (as you outlined), there's also the overarching controller in Michael. What sticks out for me here is that the risk of Rocco being caught, and turning, isn't consistent with Michael's controller instincts.

That is probably because, as you suggest with this thread, he was 'slippin'.

His desire for Roth to be dead overrode any 'controller instincts' he may have had. Once escorted out of the airport, Roth would've probably been untouchable. Michael wanted the plane met and the risks were either not thought or of no concern.

Since I don't think Michael intended to embarrass Tom until Tom stepped out of line, there is little explanation as to why the 3 of them had to be at that meeting. Not the Michael Corleone we know & love? Maybe not. Directorial license...!!!

I agree with Apple, Michael's hope for a legitimate and honorable life was shattered with the publicity generated by the congressional hearings; Roth's doing.
He's a mobster who out-smarted the feds, not an outstanding citizen!
Its also a public message to those who might think of going after him. Michael was portrayed brilliantly, but as the human that he is... he must sometimes "slip", or loose his temper, or go irrational, as all humans do.

As for talking to the group altogether... well, "desperate times call for desperate measures"... if you recall the scene; they were all seated except Michael, who was restless and animated out of agitation, and Tom's ill-timed comment was the little nudge to get him off; he may not have intended to talk so openly, but Tom's defeatist and skeptical approach got to him.

DW:

One of the notions that I've put forward in some threads here is that the entire boathouse scene is about the impending murder of Fredo. The scene commences with Tom stepping into the boathouse, and turning to look at Fredo in the background.

You are correct: Michael is extremely agitated. Note that Michael as a rookie gangster lit Enzo's cigarette with perfectly steady hands. But in the boathouse, Michael is constantly fidgeting with a cigarette lighter. Something more than business is in his mind.

The dialogue makes perfect sense in this context. Michael has to kill all of his enemies because he cannot kill his brother and leave other enemies alive. He gets Tom to give him a blank check of loyalty "in these things I have to do." And when he says that history has taught that you can kill anyone, it might be that he is contemplating violating the eternal taboo against fratricide.

To kill your father's son is to kill yourself. And next to that, Roth is small potatoes.

To betray your father's son is to betray yourself. Whether or not the plot fails in the end is irrelevant. You have pretty much signed your own death warrant, which was what Fredo did by working with Roth (anybody really believe that Roth intended to keep him on had Michael been assassinated?).

True though, the scene is very much tied in with, and a clever psychological setup for Fredo's imminent demise.

Apple

I've always felt that UNTIL the boathouse, Michael might have been willing to let Fredo go. It was his good-hearted brother led astray by that manipulative Roth and his Sicilian messenger boy. He would ostracize him, never see him or speak to him, but I think that when he asks about Fredo after his return from Cuba, he was sincere in what he said.

After hearing the depth of Fredo's bitterness, anger and, most of all, envy, Michael knew that Fredo was a danger. While everyone's initial reaction to Fredo's betrayal was that "poor Fredo" with his "good heart" had been lied to. After hearing Fredo's rant, Michael is shaken and realizes that his brother had held back all this bile for years, and that Roth had taken advantage of it. Michael hadn't even been aware of it.

SB: I agree, I think a humble and repentant Fredo could've gotten away; but the showing of his emotional baggage meant that -to be left to live- he would be a constant danger in the hands on Michael's enemies.

Apple: your choice of words is impeccable, BETRAY is the word Michael used when making confession to Cardinal Lamberto "I betrayed my wife, I betrayed myself"...

Killing "your father's son" is betraying not only yourself, but the trust your father bestowed upon you when he gave you control of the "family".

The mafia was called "The Family" partially because it demanded trust from its members similar to that of real family members - and from what the movie tells us in the cases of Paulie, Carlo, and Tessio, there is only one punishment to the betrayal of "family trust"... Morte!

Fredo had committed the cardinal sin of betraying both types of family... it is a dilemma that Michael had to make up his mind about, and I think his mind was made up before that scene with Tom, Al, and Rocco... and before speaking to Fredo; you can see it...same boathouse, when Connie came in, knelt before Michael in the boathouse, told him how she wanted to come back to take care of him and the kids, and pled for Fredo; the look on Michael's face was that of a man who was troubled with the thought, mind made up but Connie's intervention led to him deciding to give Fredo a chance to speak; the next scene was with Fredo and his outburst,...then there was no doubt about what he would do, but its bothering him.

That's all fine & good. None of it negates the fact that Fredo's betrayal of his brother, his father's son, is what eventually led to his own demise.



Actually, Fredo's 'chance to speak' and 'outburst' came long before that scene with Connie. And I never saw anything resembling 'troubled' in the look on Michael's face when Connie comes to see him in the boathouse. More like 'numb'.

sure; if you feel so strong about it!

I've always believed, as SB said, that Michael might have considered giving Fredo a pass until that wild, resentful outburst in the boathouse convinced him that Fredo would be a danger to him all his life. What's more, Fredo revealed that he knew Pentangeli had survived--and that the Senate lawyer, Questadt, belonged to Roth. How'd he know? Roth told him. Had Fredo volunteered that info to Michael earlier, he could have saved his brother a great deal of worry--and maybe reinstated himself in Michael's good graces.

Near the end of the novel, Tom sums it all up when he goes to retrieve Kay and the kids: "Because treachery can't be forgiven."

The difference is that Tom says to Kay, "Maybe in THIS world you could forgive...", because in theirs, you can't.

DW, you have some very nice insights on the film. I can tell that you're going to be a welcome addition to these discussions!

SB: Thanx... Happy to be here.

As I've said before, I do not believe that Michael believed that Fredo was a threat to him.

If he truly believed Fredo was a threat, he never would have allowed him on the compound. (He is allowed to come visit Mama.) Nor would he have given Fredo a pass for however many years Mama ended up living.

No, Michael killed Fredo not because he was a threat, but because Fredo betrayed him (to one degree or another) and Michael, at that time in his life, needed vengeance against anyone who crossed him at any level.

This is also shown in the confession to Lamberto. "He injured me." Michael's conscience would have been much lighter if he really believed that Fredo was a continuing threat.

Michael the manipulator knew that he wanted and needed Connie to "stay close," and to take care of him. He'd asked her to do that when she announced her plans to marry Merle. For him getting this concession from Connie was well worth a brief hug for Fredo and that look he gave Neri. I think it made Fredo think Michael had forgiven him, and made him more comfortable around the compound. Accordingly he became less of a threat ("keep your enemies closer"), and Michael brought Connie "home." In all a win-win for Michael.

You're right...he couldn't know for sure. I think it definitely was a case of Michael slipping. He actually followed Sonny's behavior.
If he had been more cool about what his true intentions were about Roth, I don't think he would have incriminated himself. But he was so focused on belittling Tom, that he threw caution to the wind. Great analysis.
Michael does this before, when he tells Fredo his intentions with Roth when they went out for their brotherly drink. Again, Mike is so focused on traitor, he doesn't see he's right in front of him.

Personally I don't think Michael was slippin necessarily I think it was just arrogance after the hearing he thought he was untouchable

I'll add another two cents to the "Why Rocco?" theory. Clearly Neri was the more favored of the two, and Rocco knew this. There has been a lot of speculation on the boards that Rocco did or failed to do something that irritated Michael. But there's another possibility. Michael knew that Rocco knew he was second bananna to Neri. Michael would also know that Rocco would be the most eager hit man to prove his loyalty exactly for that reason. Accordingly Michael "played" Rocco so he owuld volunteer for the suicide mision.

Not likely that an armed man who shot Roth in the airport Jack Ruby Style, and who was then escaping would end up anything but shot. Even if they had caught him alive, I doubt he'd break omerta, especially given the fact that he probably knew the way they would get to Frankie.

Maybe Rocco declines or offers up one of his troops to do the job and Michael stares at him. Then Michael asks in a soft voice, "Rocco, we never talked about it but how did Roth's men get on my property? I mean you had security right? And who took those guys out like that? Real professional, that was."

On a compeltely different topic, here's more proof that Michael was slippin'.

Not only did Fredo bump into Johnny Ola in Beverly Hills (what was he doing in Beverly Hills anyway?) he also spent time with Ola and Roth in Havana when he learned about the Superman Show from Ola.

Why wasn't Michael keeping tabs on him? Ha already knew Fredo was a loose cannon, with his taking sides with Moe Green, with his undermining the Corleone negotiating position with Greene by banging cocktail waitresses two at a time, by his choice of a spouse and by his overall weakness and stupidity. How is it
Fredo can go to Havana with Hyman Roth and go out in public with Johnny Ola and do it without Michael not knowing? Vito kept tabs on everyone, but Michael obviously did not.

This will sound contradictory but I think Vito kept a general eye on his sons as a father and on everyone else as a Mafia Don who needed the best information immediately. So Vito knew about Fredo's misdeeds in Nevada via each of his capacities.

Michael had no paternal instinct with which to look after Fredo, did not appear to have a whole lot of fraternal warmth either, and was too proud or arrogant to ever have conceived of Fredo (his sole remaining blood brother) as a threat.

Perhaps Michael thought (as revealed in the boathouse conversation) that simply taking care of Fredo and allowing him minor (albeit meaningless) responsibilities was adequate to Fredo's skills and satisfactory to Fredo's ego.

Maybe there were some entertainment related things (nightclubs, call girls, film extortion?) going on in either Cuba or Beverly Hills that would have required Fredo's attention and allowed him a plausible reason to be in those places.