In I and II Michael uses the same techniques to get people he suspects of treachery to confess before he does them in. Unlike Sonny, who had Paulie whacked because he suspected (and probably rightly so) without getting him to admit it, Michael
always got a confession. He did it with Roth and Fredo, in II and in I with Carlo and indirectly Tessio. I think Michael suspected Tessio would be the traitor all along because when Tessio gives himself away by telling Michael he can arrange a meeting on his turf, Tom says he always thought the traitor would be Clememza, but Michael says no, it was the smart move and Tessio was always smarter. Still he did not act on this suspicion until the whole thing played itself out. At the end, even Tessio admitted it to Tom when he asks if he can get him off the hook for old time's sake. I doubt Sonny would have that kind of patience.

The book mentions and notes that the other men who were with him saw it as a "sign of weakness" that Mike asked Carlo to admit that he had helped to set Sonny up.


I don't remember who the men in the room were but it was written that "Mike showed that he was not quite the man that the Don was" by asking for a confirmation of what was as evident as possible. They viewed as Mike not being fully sure of himself and his judgment.


I think both Mike and Sonny had strengths and weaknesses that the Don didn't.

I think Mike was cautious, but I also think he had a sadistic side to him and he rather enjoyed watching his enemies squirm.

"Get out of my sight"....

I think that must be the coldest line in the trilogy...

Michael was following in his father's footsteps. Vito used a similar technique with Bonasera by getting the undertaker request that Vito be his friend.

Some of us here have puzzled over Michael's requiring Carlo to confess. Some have said that it was almost a "moral" thing: Michael had to be sure--to hear it from Carlo--before he had him whacked. I doubt it. I think it made for a great bit of drama, in the novel and especially the film.

In the novel, Michael says he doesn't want to see Tessio at all. Tom was the bad news deliverer, and once again, we had a nice bit of drama. Frankie had already "confessed" by appearing before the Senate. His suicide was a quid pro quo for the safety and well being of his family. IMO, Michael was not just demanding vengeance--he was protecting himself. Although Frankie's credibility was finished, the FBI wasn't going to give him a free ride forever. They'd have pressed him to give more info that they could have used to build a case against Michael and/or Tom, Rocco and Neri over time.

?????

I don't believe that any side of Michael was 'sadistic'. I feel that from the moment he lost Appolonia, a certain degree of numbness took over, that even Kay couldn't break...and everything he did or said in terms of business from then on was well calculated and devoid of emotion. He neither liked nor disliked the way he dealt with any of his enemies...(even with Fredo, who was not merely an enemy but a traitor which in a way is worse)...he just percieved it as what needed to be done to protect 'The Family'.

The one kindness he showed in ordering that Fredo be unharmed while their mother was alive...had nothing to do with 'business', nothing to do with Fredo. It was for his mother (albeit via the insistence of M. Puzo).

Apple

I also don't believe that Michael was sadistic. As one can read in the novel more than once, Michael felt a delicious chilliness when dealing with an enemy because he felt he was in control of situations, but he would let his enemy think otherwise in those situations. I also agree that Michael did many things because they needed to be done. In fact, Tom Tells Michael as such just before Michael departs for his meeting with Sollozzo and Micahel agrees with him.

This statement by Michael is almost a contradiction. It wasn't smarter because Michael was going to kill the traitor, so Tessio wasn't smarter because if he was, he wouldn't have been a traitor. A smarter man would have known that Michael was going to eliminate all competition, corruption or traitors.

In the garden scene, in #1, where Vito speaks to Michael about how to run the buisiness, he stresses that the one who will come for an arrangement meeting would be a traitor. That's why Michael realizes all at the funeral.

The line that "Tesio was the smart one" means, IMO, that he was the one requesting more than the family provided. At that time, with Vito dead and Michael not having left his mark already, it is rational that Tesio thought the Corleones were about to weaken. And as a "smart" guy, approaches the ones he thinks are gonna be the new bosses.

Bonasera wanted Vito's help. Vito could have just given it to him. It was actually a minor request. But before Vito gave him his help, he wanted Bonasera to pronounce his friendship. As the novel says, pronouncing your friendship was one of Vito's big requirements if you wanted his help. Now, it really didn't do Vito much good to have an undertaker state his friendship for Vito, but Vito could be a real SOB when he wanted to and he probably enjoyed having peole obligated to him. Michael did a version of the same thing with Carlo. Call it humiliation or subordination, in either case it was Mike's way of dominating Carlo and further savoring the taste of his revenge.