At the end of the 1st GF, Michael eliminates all his enemies and betrayers. Michael is emerging from an ostensibly weak position, while those he ordered to be killed -- particularly Barzini and the heads of the remaining families -- are at the height of their powers.

At the end of GF2, Michael again executes his enemies and double-crossers: Roth, Pentangeli, Fredo. Even Rocco dies, and I thought this meant that Rocco's careless dispatch was punishment for his somehow betraying Michael. (Maybe Michael suspected him of being involved in the Tahoe shooting?) I thought Rocco HAD to be a traitor in order to keep GF2's conclusion parallel with the ending of GF1.

Now I'm not so sure that this is what the film makers had in mind. By the end of GF2, we see that Michael is in the early stages of paranoia. Particularly after Kay's abortion confession he seems more distrusting and suspicious. Was FFC perhaps trying to illustrate that Michael's decisions to kill the people he did were the result of a semi-irrational mind? Instead of murdering his enemies and traitors, did he instead kill quasi-enemies and pseudo-traitors?

Barzini was a threat to Michael's life. Could one say the same of Fredo? Pentangeli did not out-and-out double-cross Michael in the same way that Tessio did. He made his FBI deal for survival, and only because he genuinely believed that Michael tried to kill him first. And what about Rocco? Does his preventable death tell us that Michael was simply becoming careless, that the lives of his cohorts were now expendable?

What do you think?

Another thoughtful series of questions, Cristina.
I don't presume to summarize the theme of the Trilogy. But a thread running through all three movies is: Crime doesn't pay. Michael paid the price through his own losses--of character, of peace of mind, of his family, of love, of everything that "normal" people might experience and hold dear, of every inviolable standard that "normal" people would never cross.
That said:
Another thread in the Trilogy is how Michael tried to skew the circumstances in his life--circumstances he created--to his definition of "just," or "normal," or "realistic." (The scene in New Hampshire, when he woos Kay after returning from Sicily, summarizes his "philosophy" brilliantly.) Pentangeli and Roth were no longer threats to him, but he couldn't let them live because, in order to maintain security for the dangerous life he created for himself and his family, no enemy (even if he was no longer an enemy) ever got a pass. I believe Fredo could have been a threat to Michael down the road--guilt and repentence are the most fleeting and transitory of emotions--but he might have found a rationale to let Fredo live (in the virtual captivity he experienced at the Tahoe compound). Rocco's sacrifice was an example of Michael's coldness: Rocco was a glorified bodyguard at that point, worth less than Neri in Michael's estimation, so he took advantage of Rocco's desire to restore his position in the family by making him go on the suicide mission.
Are these examples of "paranoIa"? Arguably, yes. But I think FFC intended them to be more subtle than mental illness--I think he intended to show how a life of crime totally corrupted someone who started out as a basically good--even idealistic--person.

That is interesting to see that in GFI Mike is killing people at the height of their power, whereas in GFII, he's killing them when they are all essentially powerless. Kind of interesting.

In my opinion, yes Michael became very paranoid... remember, in the immortal words of Senator Palpatine AKA Darth Sidious AKA Emperor Palpatine.. those in power are afraid to lose it.

Good points all.

I think that Michael's paranoia was increasing more than anything else. We see this in the none to subtle argument between Michael and Tom where Tom says "Do you have to wipe Everybody out?" and Michael says "just my enemies." I agree that the killings in GF I were revenge for the hitys on Vito and Sonny and to consolidate power. The ones in II were to feed the beast Michael had become.

As for this ongoing talk of some subtrefuge by Rocco, I just don't see it. I have always thought that after Neri eclipsed Rocco as Michael's number one hit man, that rocco was always trying to get back in Michael's better graces, which is why he volunteered to do the Roth job.

The dialogue between Michael and Tom that dontomasso mentioned is quite telling about Michael's attitude. It's also notable that in the draft script for GF2, the exchange between the two of them is even more chilling:
As Turnbull noted, no enemy gets a free pass. And who's an enemy? According to Michael, anyone and everyone (or, as Turnbull said, even a former enemy is still an enemy). We see now that Michael has truly lost his way.

What is that dialogue from? I dont recognize that from the movie.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, I didnt see your opening comment. My mistake.

As I noted when I first started this topic, I first thought the final GF2 murders were exact parallels of the ending GF1 murders: Michael exterminates his enemies and cleans house of all traitors.

Then, on closer review, I saw that this was not the case. Just as there are subtle contrasts between the opening celebration scene of GF1 and the opening celebration of GF2, there are contrasts between the concluding murders in both films as well.

The first, most obvious difference was noted by MM Tom Hagen. In GF1, the murders were a power play. Michael, who was seen as weak, consolidated all power under him when he took on those who were stronger and at their peak. He was the David who slew the Goliath. In GF2, Michael is the one at the zenith of his career and those he eliminated were greatly weakened even before their deaths. Instead of a power play to gain something real, the GF2 killings were to show an example, a symbolic gesture that said "Don't cross Michael Corleone."

Then, the enemies of GF1 were true enemies. Any of them would be a threat to Michael's life had they lived. In GF2, however, a convincing argument could be made that, had every one of the people Michael ordered killed been allowed to live out his natural life, not one of them would have constituted a threat and not one of them would have caused Michael any worries about revenge.

Of course, I'm sure there are people who would debate the above two paragraphs... and I hope they will. Other POVs make this interesting .

But I also noticed other contrasts between the series of killings at the end of both films. For one, in GF1, the backdrop was a baptism, symbolizing new life, the era of a new Don, and new hope -- that after all the bloodshed, things would go legitimate. In GF2, Fredo's recitation of the "Hail Mary" prayer is the most memorable image, particularly with its final line "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners..." Notably we don't hear the last words, which are "now and at the hour of our death." Here we have a death bed prayer, suitable for the Corleone family's journey toward its inevitable destruction.

Another difference is that the GF1 murders took place in the spring or early summer (since Vito's tomato plants were in bloom). In GF2, the killings take place in autumn with the fallen leaves swirling in the wind. Again, this is a time when things prepare to die -- like the Corleone dynasty? Like Michael's character?

In both GF1 and GF2, Michael is witness to one of the concluding murders: Carlo in GF1; Fredo (via the boathouse window) in GF2. After Carlo, Michael goes about his business; blithely lies to Kay; prescribes rest and a doctor for his sister, Carlo's widow. But it was all worth it: He was justified, after all; he had to avenge Sonny's murder; it was a matter of honour. After Fredo, however, he can't go about his business or do anything without Fredo haunting his every move. There may also be a symbolic allusion in both killings being "seen through glass," but I'll save that for another thread .

Feel free to come up with some new thoughts. Maybe this thread can hold a little more interest yet.