'

Well, plawrence...it's encouraging to see that you're at least half right!!!

By the way, things were arranged so that Fredo posed no future threat. Because the only way that could be guaranteed was if Fredo was no longer alive.

Apple

Touché.

Shall I edit my post to read without killing him ?

Why would he tell Tom, Michael or anyone in the family for that matter that he was talking with Ola?

Michael, Tom and even Vito for that matter never let him in on the "inside" workings of the business.

He experienced this kind of treatment from Michael in Vegas, where he felt that he was finally doing something on his own, running a casino. And when he tried to show Michael that he was finally successful in something that HE did on his own, what did Michael do? He pissed all over it. Told him to get the girls out of here. Embarressed him in front of Moe Green.

So Fredo probably figured, deep down in his subconscience, that if he went to Tom or Mike, and told them that Ola had made him some kind of an offer that would help the family, they would piss all over it and tell him what to do. He probably figured that they would not have let him do something on his own.

Later on he even tells Michael, when they are in Cuba having a drink, that he wished that they could have done this in the past. He says this because in that scene Michael finally confides in him. Michael treats him as an equal in the business at that moment. It is as though Michael finally let Fredo in on the inner workings of the family business. He showed trust in Fredo. Of course we know what Michael's real motive in doing that was, but Fredo didn't.


Sure Fredo was both embarressed and pissed with Mike for the treatment that he gave him. I don't deny that. And his anger probably played a part in trying to do something on his own with Ola and Roth.

But he never intended to actually be a traitor or to hurt Mike in a physical manner. I think that at the very worst, he was trying to show Mike up. Kind of embarass Mike by showing him that he was capable of doing something on his own. I don't believe that even though he went behind Mike's back and dealt with Ola, that his intention was to be a traitor to Mike.

And Michael should have taken all of this into consideration. Do you know why? Because Fredo was his Brother. A weak brother. A brother that he should have protected and treated a little better.

If it were Rocco or Neri that had dealt with Ola, well then I would say that they did so with the intention of hurting Michael and with the intetion of setting him up. And they would have deserved to die.

But Fredo -- "well" -- (Don Cardi jut shrugs his shoulders in the same manner that Don Vito did when talking to Mike about Fredo).


Side Note : I'll tell you this though. It's been quite a while since we had a really good intelligent discussion about The Godfather. I'm really enjoying this! It's been a long time coming.


Don Cardi

On that statement, all alone and by itself, I do agree.

Maybe I should have said that Fredo didn't look at it is an act of betrayal or as being a traitor. It's more likely that he looked at it as a way of getting back at Michael by showing him up.

It's true that he was mad at Mike, for he admits this to Mike in Cuba when they are alone having a drink.

But IMO his being mad at Mike was not one where he intentionally set out to betray Mike. His trying to do something on his own was his way of paying Mike back out of anger.

When you love someone, but may be mad at them, you may try to prove them wrong, prove something to them, but not neccessarily look to hurt them while doing so.

But the bottom line for me is that NO ONE will ever convince me that Michael was justified in killing his brother. It was cold. And eventually Michael came to realize that what he did was wrong. In trying to save his family, he lost it.


Don Cardi

You mean you wouldn't rather be discussing hockey?

Just kidding.

One of the questions we need to answer here to effectively deal with the main question is "Exactly what was Fredo told was gonna happen?"

If he was told - as Turnbull likes to joke - that he simply had to open the drapes so that they could take pictures of Kay getting undressed and blackmail Michael with them by threatening to give them to the newspapers, that's one thing.

If Fredo was told that Michael was to be assassinated, that's quite another.

Of course, we don't know what he was told, but I always accepted Fredo's "You guys lied to me" comment at its face value, so we can assume, I think, what he wasn't told.

The only answer available is the one in the alternate script, in which Fredo is led to believe that it would be a kidnapping.

To me, that's bad enough. If that's what Fredo thought was gonna happen, he is guilty of intentional betrayal.

Hey, Plaw, I thought there was a football game on tonight!

OK, Plaw and I disagree, DC and Plaw agree, DC and I disagree, and Apple and I agree. Was that a pig that just flew past my window???

Seriously, How can anyone even question the necessity of Fredo's removal?? I am so SICK of everyone wringing their hands over "poor, weak, helpless Fredo!" Puh-leeze!! He was a jealous and impotent man. He was completely incapable of running his own affairs, and yet he resented that he constantly had to turn to Michael for help. He even needed Michael's man to drag his drunken slut of a wife off of the dance floor!!

He was angry and bitter and, above all, absolutely chartreuse with envy. Never underestimate envy. He set his brother up for some harm (hit or not, he had to know that Roth was up to something bad), then cried about being passed over, his mommy told him he was a gypsy, he didn't have a nice wife like Kay (if he only knew), he only had Mickey Mouse nightclubs, wah, wah, wah.

Then he's shocked when Michael exiles him. And we're supposed to be shocked when Michael has him killed? Of course there was an inherent danger in letting Fredo live out his days rowing Anthony around Lake Tahoe! How do you know that in 3 or 5 or 7 years, Fredo isn't going to get pissy again? Oh, my little brother Mike, he makes me row his whiny kid around all day, and I'm the older brother!! Wah, wah, wah... Then he unwittingly sets up Mary or Anthony for kidnap or murder, by being promised that there's something in it for him.

In that world, treachery can't be forgiven. It's unthinkable. And you all know it. If Fredo and Mike weren't brothers, you wouldn't care that he was eliminated.

Try this one, Apple:

Permit me to make a comparison here.

Sonny had a weakness. He allowed his temper to rule over his reason, and he spoke without thinking - to the detriment of the family - at least once that we know of.

Fredo had a weakness. He was stupid and gullible.

You suggest above that had Fredo's second transgression been similar to the his first - a public disagreement with Michael - that would have been justifiable grounds for killing him.

Well, how about Sonny?

He had a second instance where his tendency to act or speak without fully thinking things through cost the family dearly:

With his beating of Carlo, (Carlo deserving it notwithstanding) he created an enemy within the family, and by doing it out in the open he exposed a ch*nk in the Corleone armor which Barzini was able to exploit, and which ultimately led to his own (Sonny's) death.

So Sonny made two stupid mistakes which put the family at risk.

You argue above that a second stupid, yet simple, mistake, like disagreeing with Michael in public would have justified killing Fredo.

Did Sonny's two stupid, and considerably more serious, mistakes warrant his death as well?

Well, Sonny IS dead...

Look, Fredo was stupid the first time, deliberate the next. The difference is, if Sollozzo came to Sonny with a deal and said, "You're father's being tough on the negotiations. There'll be something in it for you," Sonny would have kicked his Turkish ass right out in the street.

Yes, Sonny brought disaster on the family, and he ultimately caused his own death. That was due to HIS weakness, which was his bad temper. And he faced the ultimate punishment for it. Just like Fredo did.

But there was a time lag between the act and Sonny's death.

If Michael was the Don, would he have ordered Sonny's killing for this second mistake during the lag?

The Don couldn't even bring himself to kill that scumbag Carlo, and you would even think for a second that he'd have Sonny killed??

Absolutely right about the Sollozzo meeting. When Sonny made that slip up and let someone outside the family know what he was thinking, it led to a domino effect of tragedy.

But where was the same effect in the Moe Green incident? When Moe Green angrily rejected Michael's offer (as Michael probably knew he would), Michael had him killed (as Michael probably planned to do all along); and Michael got the casino, just as he wanted.

Yes, you never go against the family, as Michael had warned him. But the whole problem with Michael and the reason I believe he is unjustified is that he NEVER considers how he contributed to or even caused the precipitating circumstances. He never considers his faults, his mistakes, or Fredo's situation.

Michael had put Fredo into a difficult position. Fredo's "psycho boss" was in the room, the one who slaps him around. If Fredo didn't at least give the appearance of smoothing things over with Mr. Moe "Flies off The Handle" Green, then how badly do you think he was going to be slapped around and humiliated when he showed up for work the next morning?

I must say, Sicilian Babe, that I am enjoying this lively debate with you and the others. We'll never persuade each other to come to the other's opinion, but you are keeping me on my toes trying to think of reasons to shore up my stance that are good enough to challenge your reasons for your stance. I am learning how to be stubborn and stick to my guns (might come in handy some day).

I await your counter-argument. Wait, I see that Apple has already provided one (actually, several)...

No, of course I don't. I don't think he would've killed Fredo, either.

But this is really an argument for Apple.

She said that if Fredo publicly disagreed with Mike twice, that would have beem grounds for killing him.

Given the two mistakes I cited that Sonny made, which were more serious than the Fredo-Moe incident, I'm wondering if she thinks Santino deserved to be whacked as well, and if not, why not?

Jeesh, I can't keep up with you people. I write a reply to someone's post and by the time it gets on the board, the message I've replied to is already ten posts back.

This post I'm responding to is probably eleven posts back; but since I already wrote this reply, I'm going to post it anyway:
Why was he not entitled to one? Wasn't he a Corleone brother? Doesn't he work in the family operations? He sat in on the Sollozzo meeting with Sonny and Tom, for goodness' sake. Why do think he was sent to Las Vegas to learn the Casino business in the first place?
How should he have known? No one even told him that Vito was semi-retired until he learned it from Tom. No one told him that Vito had invested his powers in Michael. As far as he knew, Michael was making a proposal to take back to his father -- show dad he had smarts and initiative.

Therein lies the whole problem, a problem precipitated by Michael: Fredo was excluded in a way that he wasn't under Vito. With Michael, he was not only excluded, but dismissed. Is it any wonder that Roth's proposal was so tempting to him? He craved a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, inclusion.
And let's not forget, as Don Cardi has pointed out, that Roth was a business associate of Vito's and a business associate of Michael's. If Michael didn't know at the time that Roth was an enemy, how could he expect Fredo to know? With Michael encroaching on Roth's casino territory in Vegas the way he was, it was only a matter of time before Roth came after him, with or without Fredo's help.

Who was really the danger to Michael here? Fredo, for trying to smooth things out in a hotel room so his boss wouldn't slap him too hard the next day? Or Michael, who tried to usurp the riches of a powerful criminal like Roth? I'd say Michael.

Poor weak Fredo, poor poor Fredo. How do you say it? A real Mishkeena

As for his being impotent, well I don't know about that, after all he was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time!


Don Cardi

You know why poor, dumb Fredo wore a tuxedo when he went for a vasectomy, don't you?

Oh, you don't?

Because he thought that if he was going to be impotent, he wanted to look impotent.

Ewwwww Plaw!

Point is, whether it is friend or foe, you don't tell people outside the family what you are thinking.

And Don Tommasso FINALLY makes an appearance!

I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this great discussion.


Happy New Year Don T.


Don Cardi

Actually, the Fredo's second 'transgression' was far worse than the first. The first (Moe Green) was indeed a 'transgression' if you prefer to use that word. But it was followed by that warning from Michael and did not alter Michael's immediate plans regarding the move to Nevada. The second, despite the warning after the first, was more than a 'public disagreement' it was an outright BETRAYAL that nearly caused Michael's death and irreperable damage to the Corleone Family and yes, it was justifiable grounds for his eventually being killed.

Make all the comparisons you want, to Sonny, to Sicilian Babe's and my personal family, whatever your imagination can drum up. Play all the games you want. Nothing changes the fact that in The Godfather Part II, Fredo was a traitor and Michael had every justification of having him killed.

Apple

To get some rest after suffering a nervous breakdown as a result of allowing his father to be shot down in the street.


Michael was acting Head of the Family by this time. Dispute if you like his plans and methods in dealing with Moe Green. Nevertheless, he was running the family, making the plans and Fredo was out of line to usurp his authority in that room, at that moment, by suggesting his father be contacted.

Therefore, Fredo was the more dangerous of the two.

Apple

Fredo's "psycho boss"? Fredo worried about another beating? THAT'S the problem with Fredo!! How could he disgrace the Corleone's, a legitimate power to be reckoned with, by letting himself get slapped around by a nobody like Moe Greene?!! Just another reason for Michael to be pissed at him. If Fredo really had the interests of the family at heart, he wouldn't have been a drunken philanderer that NEEDED slapping around.

Puh-leeze!! Poor, weak Fredo. If I was Michael, I would've wanted to wring his scrawny neck. The fact that Michael tolerated his behavior as long as he did just showed how much slack Michael cut him BECAUSE he was his brother.

I have to agree with you about that. When watching that scene I've always felt that Michael was both emarrassed and pissed that Fredo, a Corleone, allowed Moe Green to treat him the way that he did.

I also feel that when Michael tells Moe " You straighten my brother out," that he says it not so much in defense of Fredo, but more of a " You straighten MY BROTHER, MICHAEL CORLEONE'S BROTHER around?" It was more a message of "you're disrespecting Michael Corleone by slapping my brother around." then one of " You've disrespected Fredo Corleone."

In Michael's mind, the fact that Moe slapped Fredo around was more of a blow to Michael Corleone's honor, than one to Fredo's own honor.


Poor Fredo. Weak poor Fredo.

Don Cardi

DC, You are soooo bad! Poor Fredo indeed!!

Yes, it is definitely a blow to the Corleone Family for Fredo to be slapped around in public. And we all know that to a Family, losing face is VERY bad.

Now if Sonny were the Don, then we would have seen him beat the shit out of Moe Green in Vegas, slap the hell out of Fredo for letting Moe push him around, then kiss and hug him, and then he would have had Fredo bring those girls back up to the suite.

Now that's my kind of Don!


Don Cardi

I agree: Fredo was a traitor. I don't agree: It was not necessary for Michael to have him killed.

Now, if I may, what "games"? I don't understand

Almost all we do in these threads is ask hypothetical questions about the characters and plot.

Isn't the very title of this thread yet another hypothetical question?

I'm trying to make a point here with my question:

I presented a hypothetical situation in which I asked if had Fredo publicly disageed with Michael a second time, and had those been his only two mistakes, would that have been grounds for his execution?

You had no problem with that hypothetical, and said that it would.

I, of course, don't agree, and I suspected that you didn't even really agree with that yourself.

So I posed a second hypothetical question, in which I pointed out that Sonny had two transgressions, errors in judgement, mistakes, whatever you wish to call them, which were far more serious, IMO, than publicly disagreeing with Michael.

And I asked if, in your opinion, that would warrant the execution of Sonny.

And at that point, rather than responding to the question, you did what? I'm not sure.

If you want to say I'm "playing a game", I might agree. But if I am, I'm playing the same one that you are, I think.

It goes like this:

Someone posts something, and then when someone disagrees they post something else in an attempt to explain that the first poster is being illogical, or incorrect, or whatever.

Am I doing anything other than that?

If you want to say that you don't wish to answer this one - which seems to be what you are saying - I guess I can't make you.

I mean if this question was in a separate thread of it's own.....

I think that's a good idea Plaw. I think that you should start a new topic asking the hypothetical question " Would Michael have killed Sonny if...?"

That just might make for another good discussion.


Don Cardi

Let's see if I can wring an answer here out of Apple first, otherwise, I will.

I think it will be hard to start a thread based on the premise that if Fredo had disagreed with Michael in public twice that would have been grounds for killing him.

Who is gonna agree with that?

And I wouldn't expect anyone to agree either that Sonny should have been killed on the same basis - two transgressions, albeit more serious ones with more far reaching consequences than the hypothetical Fredo scenarios.

I don't see much of a discussion here, to tell you the truth.

I agree 100% here with DC about why Michael was pissed that Fredo got slapped around.

But SB, you suggest in your post above that Fredo "let" himself get slapped around.

What was Fredo supposed to do?

He was in Moe's hotel, Moe was on his home turf, and Moe was a far more powerful person in Las Vegas than Fredo, not only physically, but just about any other way I can think of.

At that point, it was even questionable as to who had the more pwoerful family behind him. Seemngly, that one goes to Moe as well.

So what was Fredo to do if he did not want to allow himself to be slapped around?

Slap Moe back and get a good ass kicking for his trouble?

I don't se where he had any options, really, particulalrly in light of the fact that I would say that Fredo deserved the rebuke and probably knew that he deserved it.

I know what it's like to be sitting at a table in a casino and wanting something to drink and not seeing a waitress for who knows how long, especially if you are losing.

What was he supposed to do?? He was supposed to Act like a man! Can you imagine Moe Greene slapping Michael around? I can't. And why not? Was he bigger or tougher than Fredo? No. And yet I would imagine that Moe would be afraid to touch Michael. Of course, I could also never imagine Michael distracting the help in that manner. Which just goes to show that Fredo should have been taking care of business, instead of taking care of business if you know what I mean, and that's why he was a big ol' boat anchor around Michael's neck and Michael was right to kill him.

Well, I don't know.

First of all, contrary to your "No", I would say that "Yes", Moe Greene was bigger and certainly tougher than Fredo.

Second, at that point in the story, when Mike meets Moe, he had not yet nearly established his eventual personal reputation, nor has he restored the Corleone family to their former position of prominence as the leading crimne family in the country. Far from it, in fact.

As Moe says, the perception was that the Corleones were "being chased out of New York by Barzini and the other families" and were perceived as dealing from weakness rather than strength.

And Moe also was bigger than Michael - hell, that's not saying much.....even Kay was bigger than Michael - and, from his NYC backround in a fist fight, very likely tougher

So I don't see that Moe would have necessarily had any fear of touching Michael, either.

Of course, Michael never would've been in any kind of position where Moe had an opportunity or a reason to slap him around, but in the ridiculously impossible event that he was, I don't think Moe would have had any problem in doing so, for exactly the same reasons that he had no problem smacking Fredo.

If we re-examine the situation here, we find that Fredo was in Las Vegas to work directly under Moe while learning the hotel/casino business.

we know that Moe was "headstrong" - his good friend and sometimes mentor Hyman Roth tells us so in GF II, and I can imagine the short-tempered Mr. Greene smacking the hotel chef for putting too many (or not enough, if you prefer) bluberries in the muffins, the casino pit boss for allowing a high-roller to make an ultimately winning bet larger than a table maximum allowed for, the hotel dance director for choreographing a number in which the girls did not display enough cleavage, or the casino credit manager for extending too much credit to a player who succumbs to his mound of debt to the casino and dives underground and disappears.

So even if Fredo had been taking care of business rather than "taking care of business" he might not have been able to avoid Moe Greene's thumb (and other four fingers as well ) forever.

In fact, given Fredo's overall stupidity, if you buy into the idea that a good face slapping was one of Moe's M.O.'s, then Fredo's gaining this particular kind of "hands-on" experience in the hotel/casino business was almost inevitable.

My original question, following your suggestion that Fredo "allowed" himself to be slapped around, was to say that he should "act lke a man"

Then the rest of your post was all Michael, Michael, Michael.

Whatever Fredo did, he did.

Moe, justifiablly or not, then proceeded to slap him around.

What was Fredo supposed to do about it?

Let's not forget, that according to the novel, Fredo used to kick the shit out of Michael when they were kids.

Boy SB, you're really tough on poor, weak Fredo!

I don't think that it's fair to comare him to Michael. They are two different people. Even Sonny was a different person.

Michael would have never let himself be put into that kind of a situation with Moe Green. Because as you correcxtly point out, Michael would never distracxt the help in the manner that Fredo did. Michael was really all business, especially when he was conducting business. He was most like his father.

Now I could see Sonny distracting the help in the same way that Fredo did. The only diffference would have been that if Moe Green even attempted to "straighten" Sonny out, he would have acted like a man and beat the hell out of Moe Green. And that may have caused a different problem for The Corleones.

But Fredo was just not that kind of person. He did not have the personality that either Michael or Sonny had. And being that he did not have that kind of personality. Plaw is right. There really was nothing that Fredo could do in that situation, except to tell Michael how Moe was treating him.

And not for nothing, but it is obvious that someone was reporting to Michael that Moe was mistreating Fredo. So why didn't Michael do something about it?

You know something? The more we discuss Fredo and Michael, I realize more and more what a cold hearted selfish bastard Michael really had become. And I realize even more why Fredo resented Michael the way that he did. When you think about it, Michael really did treat Fredo like shit.


Don Cardi