Michael could have had Neri whack Fredo at any time after Mama died. IMO, the neatest way would have been for Neri to have waylaid Fredo immediately after the wake and made it look like a suicide (plenty of people saw Fredo wailing at the wake). But after Connie begged Michael to forgive Fredo, he waited weeks, maybe months, before unleashing Neri. And, IMO, that plan left some dangerous loose ends. Directorial license aside, if Michael heard the two shots, so would anyone else in the compound. Michael would have to call in the police to establish an accidental end for Fredo. But, if the shots were heard, that little putt-putt boat couldn’t have been far out enough on the lake to foil a police search for Fredo’s body—or to have cleared Neri of all suspicion if he’d disposed of Fredo’s body elsewhere.

So, why did Michael wait? Did Connie’s entreaty cause him to hesitate and reflect? Was he punishing Connie for having caused Mama and him all that grief by making her believe that everything was hunky-dory ‘twixt him and Fredo because of her—and then making her feel guilty? Or, did he realize that, if he ignored Connie’s plea and had Fredo killed immediately or almost immediately, he might be a suspect—or Connie and everyone else might think that his refusal to forgive Fredo caused Fredo’s suicide?

Your thoughts?

Two possibilities:

1. Michael did not want to put his family into mourning so soon after his mother had died. Even if Michael was a cold, heartless S.O.B, he may have still had some decency left in that regard.

2. If you recall Connie's line from I and I paraphrase: you waited until our father died, and then you had him (Carlo) killed. Knowing how hysterical Connie got after that, who's to say that she wouldn't have had the same reaction if Fredo was killed? Perhaps, Connie's transition from outsider to her supposed power in III was not yet complete until the end of II when Mike was ready to have Fredo killed.

3. Directorial license: wanted the grand montage of hits just like the other two films.

How do we know that?

I mean, what indication is there that weeks maybe months went by between the Mama's death and Fredo's?

We do see Fredo and Anthony on that initial fishing trip where he explains about the 'Hail Mary'...but who is to say how much time went between that one and the aborted trip that ended up being Fredo's last? It could've happened the following weekend...we don't know.

Anyway, once he had Fredo's trust and peace of mind, Michael may have been in no hurry to accomplish the inevitable. While Fredo's existence may have remained a long-term potential danger, it was not an immediate one. Nor would Michael be concerned with who heard gunshots or what suspicion the death would arouse. He obviously wasn't concerned with Connie or Anthony hearing anything, and we know that they had to still be on the compound because Michael had not yet taken Anthony to Reno. In any case...by this time, he had become cold enough inside, had enough power and influence to either accomplish or avert just about anything.

Apple

I thought the gun had a suppressor. And the sound we hear is in Michael's head (similar to the restaurant scene in GF). Anyway, the police would search the lake. Or did Neri dump the body somewhere else, so Fredo was never found?

As I posted elsewhere I thought Michael wanted Fredo comfortable...he was keeping his enemies closer. There was no need to whack him immediately after mamma died, especially since that was when Connie agreed to come back to live with him. Michael was going through his divorce, and he was dealing with Roth and what to do about Pentangeli so, like he did in The Godfather he waited after his father's death to "meet" with his enemies.

Of course the montage killings in all three films involves directorial license, and in II and III it is a homage to the first one.

One possible time line indicator: what seasonal garb are the funeral attendees wearing? I don't remember. From all apearances, Neri and Fredo are buffering themselves against a fall or even a winter wind when Fredo was murdered.

While -without exception, all the above arguments are valid, and perhaps even concurrently true and applicable to one degree or the other; I propose an additional one:

Disclaimer: the assumption here is that all 3 parts of GF depict the same character of Michael, i.e. there was no major change in personality characteristics; we will see that while Michael -albeit unarguably calculating, tough, and eats live cats, is not totally devoid of emotions!
These emotions were more visible in his character largely in part 3 (due to age: too many to mention) but also in part 1 (due to youth: example enlisting for the war); he therefore had them suppressed somewhere in his psyche in GFII, and was not totally without feelings.

I think there was an internal conflict within Michael; the brain is ordering the elimination of a threat, this drive is supported by anger and hurt... but something else within was not ready to do it just yet, he was after all "his father's son"... "his mother's son"! what also lead to the delay (if there was one) was that Fredo was not a threat or a possible threat at that point of time.

However, as soon as the plot was in motion to "wipe out" Michael's enemies; Fredo became a possible variable.... an unknown, a threat; and as such the emotional cling to his brother was overpowered.

thats my 2 cents!

Your ideas are definitely interesting and appreciated...but I think you're stuck in this "his father's son...his mother's son"...vortex.

While Michael surely felt guilt over Fredo's death that gnawed at him for years, he also knew it had to be done. That tearful confession to the Cardinal was prodded out of an older, sicker and somewhat tired man who may have been ready to bare his soul for the first time in many years.

Michael was ready to whack Fredo from the moment he displayed that frantic, jealous rant in the boathouse. The only thing that compelled him to wait was their mother. Even after Connie's plea, which granted might've given Fredo a few more days of ignorant bliss while more pressing business was taken care of...there was no internal conflict on Michael's part.

Apple

Fredo definitely was a dead man after that outburst. By expressing such deep resentment, Fredo showed Michael that he could never be reconciled to his inferior position. Michael was justified in assuming the possibility that another Hyman Roth would appear on Fredo's horizon, promising to restore him to his "rightful place."

The only hesitancy Michael may have felt after Mama died was due to Connie's on-her-knees entreaty. I think Michael may have seen an opportunity to exploit Connie's newfound appreciation of him. Had he said no to Connie, and had Fredo whacked immediately, he would have turned her against him again.

So does Freddie get spared if he does not lash out at Michael in the boathouse?

If you go with the logic of other members (both old & new), yes it was not UNTIL that outburst that Michael decided Fredo's fate. But I'm not really sure.

What if Fredo remains sheepish and remorseful, apologizes, grovels, begs forgiveness and promises he'll never conspire with a known enemy ever again? Does Michael say ok, long as you've learned your lesson...now go back to picking up people at the airport and try & stay out of trouble." ???

Or, "Well, now that I know what was bothering you, let me make up for it and give you some really important position in the Family even though you are barely qualified to run a brothel."???

Or does he say, "Fredo I'll let you off this time cuz I know you're really sorry and didn't know it was gonna be a hit...but here's a fishing pole you're out of the family business."???

With or without that outburst, Fredo had already admitted that he went with Roth because of the desire for something in it for him on his own. The underlying jealousy was out in the open, and that is where the original danger lay. Michael could never, ever have trusted Fredo again, with anything, big or small. He couldn't be trusted within the Family or out of the Family. Whatever Michael did with him, there would ALWAYS be the resentment ("Get that, my kid brother let ME off the hook!!!"), the stupidity, the vulnerability, and always the chance of (like Turnbull says) another Roth somewhere down the line who might play upon Fredo's discontent and this time, having barely slipped by before, Fredo might decide to be a little more careful. Too many possibilities had he been allowed to live.

Michael had had a bit of time to consider what Fredo had done and what to do with Fredo before that confrontation in the boathouse. He walked into that room knowing exactly what had to happen. He only wanted information and perhaps got a little bit more than he bargained for.

It was not the outburst itself that seals Fredo's fate, so he is NOT spared without it.

Apple

Let's also remember that, in addition to the outburst, Fredo revealed two really treacherous things: He knew Pentangeli had survived, and he knew that the Senate lawyer, Questadt, belonged to Roth. He could only have learned those facts from Roth. That told Michael that Fredo must have been in much deeper with Roth than simply as a patsy for the Tahoe shooting. It also told Michael that, if Fredo had come forward with those facts before his Senate testimony, Michael wouldn't have been looking at five counts of perjury.

So, if there were no boathouse outburst, would Michael have let Fredo live? There's an anomaly:

Michael was frantic to get Fredo on that plane out of Cuba. The first thing he asked Tom when they were alone after he returned to the US was "Where's my brother?" But when told that Fredo was in NY, he merely asked Tom to "get word" to Fredo. Since Michael now knew that Tom knew where to find Fredo, he could have commanded Fredo to appear in Tahoe, or have arranged for him to be snatched off the streets, or even killed. But, curiously, he seemed to lose interest until he learned that Pentangeli was alive. At that point, he must have sensed that Fredo knew more than he was telling. So, outburst or no, he connected Fredo with the fact that he'd been set up for a perjury rap. When he said, "Is there anything else you can tell me?", he was assuming that Fredo knew more, and therefore must have been in deeper with Roth.

TB and Apple; you're actually giving a complimentary insight... the sequence of events appear to be as follows:

- In Cuba: Michael is sure that Fredo was the traitor, but by then he was trying to survive an assassination attempt on him while executing a counter attempt on Roth's life, he was trying to flee a country in a state of revelation, and fraternal instinct kicks in... thus his attempt to take Fredo with him on the plane. He -at that time, did not build a mental picture of depth and reach of this treachery. This continues as he arrives in Lake Tahoe.... an interesting side note: at that troubled state he asks everyone to leave and Tom to stay when its time to talk about his own brother; A Testimony to Tom's statute.

- As the mental picture develop, Roth's master plan unfolds, and all is tied together in Mike's head.... Fredo's fate begins to take its final form, with some doubts driven by fraternal emotions.

- Boathouse sequence seals the deal, its not just a slip that lead to the Lake Tahoe shooting, Fredo - in addition to his emotional damage towards Mike, is in deep with Roth's plan, he knows about the Senate hearings (which had to be conceived after the the shooting, and the failed assassination in Cuba as "plan C"). We are not sure how Fredo is involved with this, but the mere knowledge of some details (especially that Fredo is dimwitted and therefore we can't attribute it to logical deduction on his part) suggests that he might have sought Roth's protection after he fled Cuba.

I don't think it was fraternal instinct--I think he was trying to get as much info out of Fredo as he could, before it was too late.


We had an interesting discussion on this topic a while back:

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post472494

TB: thanks for directing me to that discussion thread; very insightful.

A general note: while I agree that Michael was indeed as tough and shrewd as they come, I continue to believe that for the character to be realistic, it must contain within it all the other emotional complexities that goes with human nature.

I fail to visualize Michael taking a decision to kill his own brother as if he was stepping on a cockroach, that he went through the whole thought process (from the suspicion confirmation at the Superman scene to the nod he gave Neri) without second-guessing himself at least once or twice; look at his choice of words:

"I know it was you, FREDO -- you broke my heart -- you broke my heart!"

It is clear that it was not anger that prompted his sentence above, it was sorrow...

I do agree -more now than before- that Fredo had to be killed, but I will maintain the notion that it was "business", not personal.... and that it was done because it had to be done, not that Michael liked giving that particular order.

Then you fail to visualize Michael Corleone.

Yes, Fredo DID break his heart, because they were brothers. Had anyone else on earth been discovered as the traitor Michael would not have been nearly as upset.

And yes, killing Fredo WAS business (as was Fredo's betrayal of his brother - I wonder if he did that without a second thought), despite the fact that they had been brothers. Consider this choice of words:

"Fredo, you're nothing to me now. You're not a brother , you're not a friend. I don't want to know you or what you do..."

Michael never 'second guessed' the decision, never got 'fraternal' once he was sure of Fredo's treachery. Up until Connie's intervention, the only 'personal' factor in the entire process was allowing Fredo to live as long as their mother was alive, and that was for her benefit not his.

And I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Michael 'liked' giving the order to have Fredo killed.

Apple

This actually proves my point Apple, I'm saying that at the discovery of Fredo's betrayal, it was emotional, but by the time the full picture was clear to Michael; it was a business decision that had to be taken.
Typically, the closer you are to the instigating event, the truer is the reaction; in Cuba, it was a true emotional reaction because it was close to the discovery, in the boathouse, reality had sunken in, and rational took over.

To better appreciate the drama, I must assume that (regardless of the actual job at hand) Michael's personality transformation from a war hero and honest guy, to the Don of Dons was a gradual metamorphoses invoked by necessity. Agreed, he did possess the personality traits required for the job, weather genetic or acquired... and that this transformation took a 360 degree full cycle by the end of GFIII...
But to assume Michael was all business and no emotions is to flatten the character and reduce it from a 3-dimentional complex personality, to a 2-dimentional cartoon villain.

Again, nobody is assuming that. Nobody ever has.
(Well, I haven't..!!)

Although there are some here on the BB who continue to refer to the GFII Michael as a cold hearted monster, ice in the veins, etc....you are absolutely right in delving into the metamorphasis of the character, exploring the reactions to actions of those around him, his mindset, the circumstances that led to almost every decision he made, every action he took.

Continue to enjoy proving your points...as you have seen, you will get little argument from me.

Apple

Apple: Arguments from you is what I'm counting on

And when you EARN them, you'll get them!!

you entice arguments, you don't earn them....