When Clemenza and Tessio met with Michael and Vito in Vito’s office, Clemenza demanded: “Don Corleone -- you once said that the day would come when Tessio and me could form our own family. Til today, I would never think of it. I must ask your permission...” Vito replied that Michael was in charge. Michael said the two could “break off from the Corleone Family…after we make the move to Nevada.” But only about three years later, at Anthony’s party, we see Frankie Pentangeli, Clemenza’s successor, solidly under Michael’s thumb—and chafing. Michael reminds him that his family “is still called Corleone.” He supports the Rosato brothers in their dispute with Frankie and refuses Frankie’s request to whack them. And, to add insult to injury, the FBI chart at the Senate hearing lists Frankie as a mere “Caporegime,” below Fredo on the Corleone organization chart.
What happened to the “pledge” that Clemenza could go his own way? Why is Frankie under Michael’s thumb? The answer, I believe, not only shows us more of Michael’s controlling character, and his greed. It also gives another insight into Hyman Roth’s almost supernatural craftiness:
First, I think Michael exercised the old prerogative that the father’s word doesn’t bind the son. (Vito pledged to the other Dons that he would “not be the first to break the peace,” but his promise didn’t apply to Michael.) If Vito had lived to see the move to Nevada, Michael probably would have let Clemenza go his own way with the “olive oil business.” But Vito died, and Michael found it expedient to maintain control of New York by having Clemenza report to him as a capo.
Second, I think that when Clemenza made his demand about splitting off, he was speaking less out of eagerness to head his own family, and more out of frustration with Michael’s seeming weakness with Barzini. When Vito said, “Do you trust my judgment,” Clemenza replied fervently, “Always, Godfather,” while Tessio just hissed, “Yessssss….” Vito said, “Then be a friend to Michael,” and Clemenza was. Tessio, we learn later, “was always smarter” and was willing to betray Michael to be on his own. The last we see of Tessio, he’s being taken for a ride; the last we see of Clemenza, he’s kissing Michael’s hand and calling him “Don Corleone.”
I believe that when Michael moved to Nevada, he gave Clemenza a long leash to run the “olive oil business.” Clemenza passed Michael’s ultimate loyalty test. And things were peaceful: Michael had conveniently erased all of his and Clemenza’s enemies in the other families. As the last survivor of Vito’s original triumvirate, Clemenza probably commanded the loyalty and respect of the New York Corleones. I think Clemenza was perfectly happy with this arrangement, and harbored no grand ambitions at that late stage in his life.
But, IMO, Clemenza was getting old and no doubt his health was failing. Michael had a succession problem. I believe he chose Frank Pentangeli because Frankie was “old Mafia”: loyal to his father and to Clemenza, unimaginative, no head for the “big deals,” content with the status quo. Also, Frankie would need Michael’s support to stay in power (unlike Clemenza, who could have stood on his own but chose to stay close to Michael). The Rosato brothers, with their “un-Mafia” ways (“They recruit n*****s, they recruit s***s…everything with them is women, broads, and a babania, junk…”) would have made Michael nervous.
So why did Michael side against Frankie and with the Rosatos in the dispute over the three Bronx territories? I think Frankie was telling the truth when he said that “Clemenza promised them ugaz —he hated them Rosatos more’n I do.” This is where Roth comes in:

Michael’s overarching desire was to become “completely legitimate.” With Roth’s agreement that he could remove Klingman from the Tropigala Hotel, Michael moved closer to being the biggest force in Nevada casinos. And Roth was promising to hand over his interests in Havana to Michael. That deal would make Michael the dominant power in all of the big-money legalized gambling in the Western Hemisphere at that time. Thanks to Roth, he would need less and less of the “illegitimate” activities of his New York outpost, which in fact could become an embarrassment to him. So, when Roth asked Michael to support the Rosatos against Frankie, he said yes as a way to help cement his deal with Roth.
Why did Roth involve himself in the dispute? Michael didn’t know at that time that Roth was planning to kill him. But Roth knew. And, if he succeeded, Michael’s heirs might plan revenge. Frankie’s New York regime would be a critical asset in any war. So Roth engineered the Tahoe hit to look as if Frankie planned it. Tricking Michael into siding with the Rosatos provided the perfect motive for Frankie to look like he was the culprit in the shooting—the perfect fall guy for Roth’s plot.
Why didn’t Michael see through this plot—or at least question why Roth would involve himself in the Pentangeli/Rosato dispute? Because Michael was greedy for Roth’s deal. I’m guessing that, if Michael asked Roth why Roth wanted his support for the Rosatos, the reply would have been, “They did me a favor once, and I owe them.” A patently absurd answer, but I bet Michael was ready to believe it because he was hot to trot for the Havana deal. Clever Roth! Too bad his plot failed.

This is another one of those holes that open up between the novel and the films.
On page 440 it does say that Clemenza does have his own family. But since Godfather II doesn't have Clemenza in it they had to change things and left a problem.
Sure, Michael yells at Frankie and Frankie yells back about it being his family. I think what it really means is that Clemenza/Frankie ran the old olive oil buiness after Michael left for the west like what was promised. But Michael still felt in control or at least able to say his piece . It was his father's, then his and then passed to them.

Karl

Then in Godfather III you see Michael not giving two shits about the old olive oil business. Joey Z's got it and Micahel doesn't care how it is run by then. He has bigger things on his plate.

Karl

Very interesting... I was always under the impression that Pentangeli pretty much DID run his family the way he wanted, but it was similar to how a corporation has several other corporations under it.. they run themselves but still have to answer to the "Board of Directors", in this case Michael. I think that's what he meant by the "Your family is still called Corleone" remark; it was kind of like saying "Remember, you run MY olive oil company, so what I say still goes"

What an interesting post, especially about Tessio, Clemenza, and Pentangeli, and also Michael's power plays.

Now that you've explained it, I think I understand Roth's strategy. Because Michael is gung-ho for their deal, Michael is nice to the Rosato brothers and they get their "two territories in the Bronx." Pentangeli doesn't like this; so after Michael's death, Michael's people would think Pentangeli had turned traitor and was behind it. Michael's people then "take care of" Pentangeli; and this maybe gives the Rosatos time to "muscle in" and get more territory. Roth ends up with a power base in New York AND is ensconced as sole kingpin of Nevada and Havana.

Now this might be opening a whole other can of worms, but I have a question (and there's always a question, isn't there? ): Why did Roth make the move to kill Michael at that particular time?

In other words, I thought Roth needed Michael's $2 million dollar investment in Havana. I'm not sure if it was the money per se that was important, or the fact that it established Michael as one of the investors. (With the assets that a partner like Michael Corleone can bring to the table -- political connections, an already established casino & hotel empire, etc. -- Roth's other investors would have the confidence to remain on board.)

But if Michael had been killed in Tahoe, as Roth presumably wanted, Roth wouldn't have Michael's $2 million and he wouldn't have Michael on board as an investor. Wouldn't that have been a serious setback to Roth's expansion plans in Havana?

Now if Michael's $2 million WASN'T important to Roth -- if Michael's participation in the Havana deal was a lure to get what he wanted from Michael before eliminating him -- then why didn't Roth have Michael killed in Havana immediately? (Send that "military car" from Battista to pick up Michael at the airport when he arrived instead of waiting until New Year's Eve.)

That also brings up the question of whether not Michael's suspicions about the "military car" were correct. Is it ever truly confirmed that this was Roth's plan on how to get Mike?

Roth's most important imperative was to eliminate Michael. Whacking him after Anthony's party was the best opportunity. Pentangeli was there, contentious over Michael's support of the Rosatos. Roth was absent, claiming ill health. It was the perfect opportunity to put the blame on Frankie. That was far more important than the $2 million.
I believe that the $2 million was a brilliant improvisation by Roth after the Tahoe attack failed. When Michael visited Roth, and seemingly blamed Frankie for the attempt, Roth went to Plan B:
--Lure Michael to Havana, where Roth was the most powerful gringo and could have him squashed like a bug, with the promise that he'd be anointed as Roth's successor.
--Tell Michael that, in order for him to take over Roth's Havana gaming empire, he had to bring $2 million to bribe the President of Cuba.
--Once the $2 million was in hand, have Michael killed and keep the $2 million. Thus, Roth would have made Michael pay for his own assassination. Brilliant!
The reason Roth didn't whack Michael when he arrived was that the money didn't arrive with him. In fact, Roth's greed for the $2 million was what kept Michael alive until he could find out who the traitor was in his family.

Note to Mista: I assume that the military car story was correct. Once Fredo arrived with the $2 million, Roth felt he could go ahead with his plan. Since he still assumed that Michael had no clue that he was going to be killed, it'd be logical for Roth to arrange, through his pal the President, for Michael to be taken back to his hotel after the party in a military car "for his safety." IMO, Roth would have arranged for SIM, the President's Secret Police, to attack the military car and kill everyone in it, including Michael, and make it look like the rebels were responsible. Then it'd look like Michael got killed accidentally in the revolutionary crossfire.

I always did have a certain soft spot in my heart for Barzini and Roth. I was almost dissappointed that their illustrious and ingenious plans ended up being foiled by that goddamn Michael Corleone!

Turnbull, you've certainly thought of everything. I never thought that the $2 million was required to pay Battista's regime to act as hired assassins. What a corrupt government indeed.

I gather then that Michael, once he deduced the assassination plot, realized what the $2 million was really for. Note how he devises a wicked little comeuppance: At Roth's birthday party, Michael pointedly announces the rebel activity he saw that day, giving credence to doubts about Cuba's stability. This is a potential blow to the confidence (and flow of money) of the other industrialists who were convinced by Roth to invest in Cuba. (I suppose their "gifts to the government" will gain Roth favours from Battista, particularly more control over the hotels and casinos.)

Roth is so displeased that he chastises Michael twice, first by taking him aside privately at the party, and second by raising the issue again in his hotel room. You could almost hear Michael thinking, "Hah! You thought you could use my own money to pay for my death. Not only won't you get my money but I'll make it hard for you to get any money from your own group of investors -- or at least give you headaches worrying about it." Wouldn't it be something if the stress of all this contributed to Roth's stroke? Then you could say that Michael played THAT one beautifully.

Interesting theory, Cristina.
Actually, it's not clear what the $2 million was for. Perhaps it was Roth's fee to Batista (or his henchmen) for killing Michael, as you suggest. Perhaps it was a regularly scheduled payment that Roth owed Batista for his gambling franchises in Havana. Or (and this is what I believe): Roth simply saw an opportunity to squeeze $2 million out of Michael while in the process of setting him up to be killed.
Whatever the purpose, I think Michael held out on handing over the $2 million because he recognized that Roth's greed would keep him alive: Roth would never move on him until the $2 million was in his greedy little hands.

BTW, that birthday cake scene on the hotel balcony was a two-edged sword. While Michael used it as an opportunity to stall his handover of the $2 million, Roth was establishing an alibi for himself. If Michael's allies or successors didn't buy the "killed by the rebels" death Roth was planning for Michael, he could always tell them, "Hey, I had nothing to do with it. I loved the kid like my own son. Why, just the day before poor Michael got caught in that crossfire with the rebels, I anointed him my successor in Havana, and promised to turn everything over to him. Just ask any of those coupla dozen thugs who were there with us."

Talk about taking a real porking. Paying for your own hit.
And people think Fredo was a dope.

I don't think hits were 2 million dollars in Cuba back then though. Even if any of Michael's money went to pay for Michael's wacking it would be a true royal porking

Karl

Before Castro, Cuba had the third-highest per-capita income in Latin America, after Argentina and Chile.

I definitely think it was a bribe for Batista, and Michael would have done his due dilligence to make sure everyone else involved (i.e. Roth and whomever else was getting a piece of the action) was paying his fair share. I'm sure if Batista was paid to kill Mike, it was some kind of side deal Roth would have made.

As for the under the thumb thing, which began this thread, I think the deal was that Frankie ran his own Family, but under the protection of Michael Corleone....in the "champagne cocktails" scene Michael says to Frankie, "And YOUR FAMILY is still called "corleone." This implies he ran his own family and that Michael gave him protection on the commission. Later that family ended up in the hands of Joey Zasa.

Now there's a good question I never really thought out before. Clemenza said, "Don Corleone, you once said the day would come when Tessio and I could break off and form our own family. Until today I would never think of it, but I must ask your permission." Did he mean that he expected Vito to make him and Tessio Dons? If Clemenza and Tessio were respective Dons of their own families in New York, then wouldn't they be in competition with each other AND with the Corleone family? Or would it have no affect on the Corleones, since they are moving their base to Nevada? (You would think, though, that the Corleones would want to maintain a power base in a big city like New York.)

I thought a "family" was like an empire onto itself -- such a huge entity that in all of New York there were only five of them (the "5 families" so often spoken of). Can Don Corleone start up a new one just like that by "giving" it to his capos (or underbosses, or whatever... I'm not familiar with the hierarchy)?

Or maybe that's not what "breaking off" means (?) Before Michael's involvement we saw that Clemenza, under Don Vito, had territories in the Bronx, and Tessio had territories in Brooklyn. If "breaking off" from the Corleones doesn't mean they become Dons in their own right, with their own families, but that they're still under the Corleones, then why "break off" at all?

I need someone who's familiar with all this mafia terminology to explain. (Turnbull, are you online? ... but anyone else in the know is welcome to reply also.)

I'm not sure that Clemenza's request and Michael's reply were written to be interpreted literally, but:

Clemenza said that Vito said that the day would come when he and Tessio could form their own family (singular). If so, it'd mean that the two would be one. And Michael said they could "break off" from the Corleones. I infer from those statements that something would remain of the Corleone Family independent of Tessio and Clemenza. How much isn't clear, since we never learn the size and scope of Tessio's and Clemenza's territories (though the novel implies that Tessio had a long leash and some people didn't even know that he was under Vito Corleone). I infer that Tessio and Clemenza would have constituted the bulk of what had been the entire Corleone Family. But that would still leave Sonny. He's the key:

Before he was shot, Vito had a serious succession problem. Sonny was his logical successor, but the film implied (and the novel flat-out stated) that Vito didn't think Sonny would be an effective Don. Sonny himself said (in the novel), "I know I'm not the man Pop was..." Fredo wasn't in the running. And Vito never intended for Michael to be the boss of the "olive oil business" as Vito ran it.
Perhaps Vito made that promise to Clemenza and Tessio as a way out of his succession problem: they'd take the bulk of the "olive oil business" and Sonny would have a remnant--enough to keep him and the family and people who went with him solvent. Vito would have divvied it up so that the stuff Sonny retained wouldn't be endangered by his volatile temper and poor judgment. Michael would enter politics, become a pezzanovante, and evolve the family's gambling and labor rackets to "legitimacy."
Cristina, a Don can do whatever he wants with his family--Mafia "rules" don't apply. Vito might have made this complicated scenario work--for as long as he was alive. But greed is the common denominator of Mafia. Once he was gone, Tessio and Clemenza likely would have found that their "family" (singular) wasn't big enough for the two of them. And if Sonny didn't get himself killed, he'd be lusting after what his father gave Tessio and Clemenza. War would be in the air...