After the Tahoe shooting, Michael tells Tom, "At his moment you're the only one I completely trust." I and others here believed Michael. Now, I'm not so sure about "completely":

At that moment, Michael needed Tom more than he had since the Great Massacre of 1955. But he needed Tom on his terms, under his control. In one of the most sublte and brilliantly acted scenes in the Trilogy, Tom starts out by asking, "Mikey, you all right?" Michael, unruffled despite his hair-raising escape from death, moves right into his agenda:

"There's a lot I can't tell you -- and I now that's upset you in the past." Tom gives a shrug--uncannily like the one Vito gave Bonasera when he said, "Be my friend...", as if it were some minor nuance. But, just as Vito was waiting for the clincher, "...Godfather," and the hand kiss, Tom was waiting for his reward: ..."it's because I admire you and I love you that I kept things secret from you... Tom, you're my brother."

Bada BING! Tom not only gets his emotional reward, he practically weeps with gratitude: "{I always wanted to thought of as a brother by you, Mikey -- a real brother." Now Michael has not only reinforced Tom's loyalty, which he assumed, but his fealty, which was not a sure thing, given the miserable way he'd been treating Tom. And, with no further ado--and no more information than he'd given Tom earlier--Michael puts Tom in charge so he can clear up the mystery.

So, getting back to the theme of this thread, if Tom's the only one Michael can completely trust, why is he still saying, "There's lot I can't tell you"? I emphasize the present tense because you'd think that if he's putting Tom in charge, he ought to have said, "couldn't tell you" and have confided in Tom. By then, Michael was pretty sure Roth was behind the shooting. But, when Tom asked, "If we catch these guys do you think we'll be able to find out who's backing them?", Michael simply demurred: "Unless I'm very wrong, they're dead already. They're killed by somebody close to us -- inside. Very, very scared they botched it." And Michael doesn't rule out Rocco and Neri, who could have squashed Tom like a bug while Michael was away. All Michael says is, "Anything is possible.

My question: why didn't Michael tell Tom more? Tom knew he was in deep with Roth and Ola, and about Pentangeli's troubles. Did Michael believe that if he told Tom he thought Roth was behind the shooting, Tom be tempted to help Roth to turn the tables on Michael for being left out? And, since Michael couldn't rule out Neri, Rocco or even Fredo, did he fear that Tom would start trying to figure out how they might have been in cahoots with Roth--and possibly being killed by them, or tempted to fall in with them--instead of being totally vigilent about protecting the family?

All in all, seems like less than complete trust to me. Your views?

I am not sure what it is Michael "couldn't" tell Tom at that point, but in both GF and GFII, Tom had an uncanny way of knowing what was going on whether he was actually told things or not. In GF he was told he was "out" but he already knew about the Neri regime, and would have easily deduced that Michael was embarking on a war when he was told he was not a wartime consigliere. Then he was given the job of drawing up the contracts for Fontaine in Vegas, and listening as Mike told Moe Green that he wanted to move him out. At Vito's funeral he asked Mike "do you know how they're going to come at you?" And Mike says "on Tessio's ground where I'll be safe," to which Tom replies "I always thought it would be Clemenza." Theretofore the only on screen talk we hear about a potential traitor was between Michael and Vito. He was also privy to the murder of Carlo.

In GF II he knew Johnny Ola was on the premises and he also knew why Pentangeli was there. He didn't need to be a rocket scientist to understand Michael was dealing with Hyman Roth, and by the time Michael got back from Havana, Tom knew virtually everything that went on in Cuba, that Roth got out and that Fredo was probably in New York. He also knew Fredo was the traitor in the family.

Some of this can be attributed to Tom's solid deductive reasoning, but I have another thought. Maybe Michael was not hiding anything from Tom, but instead sending him out of rooms, humiliating him repeatedly and so forth as a means to keep Tom "in his place." Vito had 100% confidence in Tom and told him so. I think it is possible that Michael also did, but being the co ntrol freak he was, he would never tell anybody that he trusted them completely (because he didn't). But in truth Tom pretty much knew everything all along, but Michael always wanted him to think he didn't and that he was by no means indispensible.

There's trust and then there's trust.
Michael trusted Tom to protect Michael's family (which is also Tom's family) and he trusted that Tom wasn't privy to whatever evil plans had been hatched such that Michael and Kay were almost killed. Although he gets some sort of sick pleasure from castigating Tom he never doubts Tom's loyalty.

He did not trust Tom enough to allow Tom to take any aggressive actions independent of Michael to identify or neutralize internal threats in the Family. Not only was it a question of control (Michael wanted to do that himself) but probably one of competence. Tom is almost as smart as Michael but not quite and nowhere near as cold-blooded.

Michael doesn't know who in the Family has been compromised. If he had told Tom everything Tom may have let something slip that could have tipped Roth off. Or Tom devises his own plan which possibly alienates a loyal member and lets a guilty one escape.

I still think that someone besides Fredo (maybe Rocco?) or one of Fredo's men had to be involved in the attempt on Michael's life. For example not only do we have the whole drapes thing, but we also have the swift and quiet killing of two hitmen, the fact that they were on the estate in the first place, the fact that they avoided detection for at least some hours after the Communion was concluded and the fact that they had knowledge of which home was Michael's, all of which would argue that unless Fredo was some sort of Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass there was more than one traitor in the Family.

All of this would have been going through Michael's mind so he would have avoided giving anyone more information than they needed about his next moves or future plans. And as Michael correctly and cynically surmised, Tom would be content to be considered a "real brother" and sit in the Big Chair for a while without asking any other questions.

TB, I think you're completely right about Mike's do everything on his terms. There was nothing he couldn't tell Tom; there were things he didn't want to tell Tom and, besides, he didn't have to say that to Tom anyway. It was just Mike's way of manipulating Tom and trying to look like he was doing Tom a favor. Mike was both good cop and bad cop.

I just saw this scene again last night. After the Tahoe shooting, Mike gives the power to Tom before leaving that night. One thing about this scene that caught my attention was a Vito nugget of wisdom passed on to Michael. Hagen questions the possibility of Neri or Rocco being behind the attack and Mike replies; (I'm paraphrasing) "Pop taught me a lot. He taught me to try and think how the people around you think." Not an exact quote. That proceeds the "Anything is possible." reply to Tom. That is a great piece of advice handed down to Michael from Vito. In my opinion, that is just as poignant as the "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer." line.

In that context Michael also notes that all his "people" were businessmen, implying that the hit attempt could be "business not personal." Of course Fredo's motivation was definitely personal and not really related to business (other than the pipe dream that he could be a good Don). I don't think Michael did not suspect Fredo, but by implying that the traitor could be taking Michael out for purely "business" reasons, he was hiding from Tom his suspicion of Fredo, and sending Tom a clear message to keep a close eye on Rocco and Neri in his absence.

That's in gigantic contrast with the novel wherein Michael tells Tom(?) that it's all personal.

What I don't get about "there's a lot I can't tell you" is that he is obviously referring to the Roth deal in Cuba because earlier that day he asked Tom to leave the room before he and Johnny Ola talked. Yet when Michael and Fredo escaped Cuba, Tom seemed to know everything about it, right down to what happened to Roth. When did he learn of all this?

Michael more than likely filled Tom in on the Cuba details later, of course choosing only to inform Tom of the details Michael deemed necessary. Enough for Tom to know where Michael would be, but not the intimate details of the Cuba trip.

A lot of thoughts about Tom...Also in the other thread, about Tom being a traitor. My oppinion is that Michael never forgave Tom attitude during the Solozzo thing. By that time Tom wanted Santino to make the deal and prevent the war. However, Michael didn't think stuff this way.

So Michael's concern was not that Tom would betray him, but that Tom's way wasn't Michael's way. The Cuba buisiness was a mistake by Michael. Not only he lost a great amount of money being fooled by Roth about the Castro thing, but also made his loyal people (the real Mobs in NY) go against him, or at least get frustrated by him. Perhaps Tom's advice would be not to move so much into Cuba. But Michael was Michael and needed no consigliere.

His stuborness lead the family to the facts of #3 and him to the complete breakdown. I am not against Michael, but the way he treated things show a person not flexible enough to understand that the Mof past would never let him go.

DT, I think that Mike was referring to many things that he withheld from Tom and he said it as a way of mollifying Tom at that particular moment. It was a particular moment because Tom was the only one that Mike could absolutely trust in those circumstances. Remember, Mike tells him that he keeps info from him because he loves and respects him. Of course, that's a lie. Mike never forgave Tom for not protecting his father and his brother. That is really evident in GFII near the end when Mike asks Tom is he is going to stay. Even in GFIII Mike is still referring to Tom just as a lawyer. So, as he does with so many people, Mike is manipulating Tom.

As far as Tom knowing about Roth, etc., that was probably info that Tom, being in the position he was in the underworld, came to know about thorugh his sources.

I agree by that point in GF 2 Mike was so cold he would probably whack is own mother lol. I think like u said Mike was still pissed at tom for failing to protect Sonny

I speculated that Fredo told him all about it--because Fredo was in with Roth far deeper than he let on:

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