Shouldn't Michael have known that Fredo wasn't loyal to him? Wouldn't Don Vito have known if someone that close to him wasn't completely and totally loyal? Michael killing Fredo seems to be him erasing not only his brother's weakness but his own. Thoughts?

I think the possibility of a brother being disloyal was a concept foreign to Michael (until it was almost too late). That whole scenario was written especially for Part II (which also included Michael's dark side slide) and Vito wasn't around for any of it so he couldn't have foreseen any of this happening.

Even though Puzo co-wrote Part II, there was so much added especially for the sequel that it's really hard to to compare the characters' differences (between Part I and II).

Welcome to the boards, Primo.

I agree SC

Vito knew Fredo didn't have smarts to ever be Don; he knew Sonny's temper was not a good trait for a Don. Michael and Tom knew this as well. BUT, don't you think that even as wise as Vito was and as smart and cunning as Michael was, the last thing that either would think is that Fredo would be disloyal to his own blood. In Michael's cold/chilly way, Fredo probably really did break his heart.


TIS

I agree, SC. Times had changed ("Tempi cambi"), as Michael said to his mother.
Many of the problems that Michael faced, were unknown to Vito. Not only the disloyalty of his brother but also the concept of women's liberation. Vito's wife would never have left him.
But on the other hand Michael never really tried to build friendships. He never even trusted Tom. I think Vito would never have gone to Cuba and let his family (I mean his real family) alone.

Respectfully, I don't agree with your takes. First off, betrayal (even family betrayal) was not something that came to be only after Vito's passing. While Vito had no living brothers, there were plenty of people that were very very close to him that could have turned on him for various reasons, and thus was subject to a similar threat from Genco, for instance. Vito's attention to detail and the steps he took to avoid being careless forced him to "think as the people around him thought" and turn over every stone to see what lied underneath. Michael was perhaps too busy working on big deals rather than keeping his eye on the details of the inner workings of his family. Not keeping Fredo close enough was sloppy work on Mike's part (as a Don and brother) and could never have happened under his father's watchful eye.

And thanks for the welcome SC! It's nice to be surrounded be similarly obsessed people.

"Keeping his eye on the details of the inner workings of his family"? To look for what: an attempted murder? "Sloppy work"? It's his family. Why would he keep an eye on his family?

Respectfully, I don't agree with your take.

Michael did keep Fredo close, as close as was possible for someone of Fredo's...simplicity. All he could be trusted with was the 'picking up someone at the airport' or planning the parties or running the brothels.

In fact, it had been Sonny, years earlier, who had sent Fredo away to Vegas, when he suffered a breakdown after proving incapable of even attempting to defend his father from being gunned down. Fredo never returned to New York. Michael went to Vegas and kept Fredo under his wing, took care of him, gave him the only kind of work he could handle.

Michael had no reason to distrust Fredo or keep him under a 'watchful eye', prior to the hit attempt by Roth. Because Fredo kept his resentment to himself until Johnny Ola came along to stir it up.

There was nothing 'sloppy' about the way Michael handled his brother. Either before the betrayal or after. And use all the psychology you like, but the only thing Michael intended to 'erase' with Fredo's killing...was Fredo, and the risk of another betrayal somewhere down the line.

So...back to the original thought...what WAS Michael's weakness????

AppleOnYa

It's true that Michael, in his generation, might not have expected betrayal by his own brother. But if he had a weakness in this situation, it was that he did not entertain the possibility that the simplicity and weakness that led to Fredo's being passed over might become a source of resentment that would lead to betrayal.

About the closest he came was after the Tahoe shooting when he told Tom, "Fredo? He's got a good heart. But he's weak and stupid, and this is life and death." I took that to mean that while Michael didn't suspect Fredo of outright betrayal at that point, he allowed for the possibility that Fredo might have endangered the family inadvertently, and/or that he didn't have the stuff to run the family while Michael was away. To borrow a phrase from Ian Fleming: he smelled a mouse when he should have smelled a rat.

Stepping back two steps: Michael's real weakness that his obsession with becoming "legitimate" by acquiring Roth's Havana empire blinded him to Roth's treachery--which included recruiting his own brother for betrayal.

Fabulous point, Turnbull. Nail on the head!!!
(Little wonder he wanted Roth dead even after he had 'won'!)

As for Michael's oversight of the possibility of Fredo's simplicity leading to Fredo's being passed over leading to Fredo's resentment leading to Fredo's betrayal....I suppose in hindsight that's a pretty neat package all tied up with pink ribbon. But...even the ingenious Michael Corleone was likely incapable of entertaining such a course of events and therefore keeping his brother under a 'watchful eye'.

I demur TB. Mike's comment about Fredo's weakness and stupidity was told to Tom simply as an honest appraisal of Fredo's limited capabilities in order to support Mike's manipulation of Tom. It wasn't because he recognized that Frddo was a danger, potential or otherwise.

I think, PrimoPaisan made some valid points. Even Vito kept an eye on his family. The novel tells us that even though he didn't talk to Fredo, Vito insisted on being informed about his behaviour. He was regularly informed about Carlo's actions. And he seperated Clemenza and Tessio spatially after he had risen to power. He handled Luca carefully, like a valued, but dangerous dog. Luca was not a real friend to Vito, even though he says so at the wedding party. To Michael, Neri seems to be the only friend.

With the exception of Fredo, the others weren't his family, Danito.

As far as Fredo goes, it would be natural for a caring father to be concerned about a "slow" child and would want to be kept abreast of what was happening in his life.

Welcome Primo.

I have long thought that Michael should have allowed Fredo to believe he was more important to the family than he really was just to keep him satisfied enough not to betray him. When Sonny dispatched him to Vegas, Fredo was proud that he was going to "learn the casino business." Michael was so self centered, he had no empathy for those around him, and since he never needed Fredo for anything he never took into account how Fredo might be feeling.

True, and according to Moe Green, all Fredo learned was how to do coctail waitresses two at a time.

So the 'casino business' proved to be yet another line of work that Fredo was incapable of handling. Mike ended up giving him about as much responsibility as he could handle; there was virtually no way to foresee how discontent and disloyal he would become, at Roth & Ola's prodding.

On a side note - it still is amazing to me how much slack Fredo gets on the Board simply because of his 'weakness and stupidity'. The guy is given numerous chances by BOTH his brothers to make good - and messes up time and time again.

Give him something so he could "believe he was more important to the family than he really was..."??? Man...the guy was lucky he wasn't mopping floors.

He had only one younger brother (Michael).

You're right...I've revised it.

Your point is still correct, though. Fredo has been cut a lot of slack on these boards.

I must admit I'm guilty of that....

The differences between Michael and Vito's handling of family/Family members is clearly shown in the scene in GF1 where Michael lays out the move to Nevada. Tom is, basically, humiliated in front of key Family members. Later, Vito and Michael tell Tom the same thing in very different ways.

Vito: "Tom -- I advise Michael. I never thought you were a bad Consiglieri. I thought -- Santino

was a bad Don, rest in peace. Michael has all my confidence, as - as you do. But uh -- there

are reasons why you must have no part in what is going to happen."

Michael: "You're out, Tom."

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that Fredo be given legitimate responsibility. However, I can't help but think that had Michael learned Vito's people skills, Fredo would not have been so desperate to make a deal with "something in it for me" that he would have betrayed the family and the Family.

In that sense, Michael's unsympathetic persona could be considered a weakness.

Danito- You nailed my perspective. The insight and "master-planning" that went into the creation of Don Vito's empire did not overlook the structure of his own organization. In fact, though he spent spent so much time in doing so, he made the single greatest mistake of his life in making Hagen consigliere. Point is, though he made a key error in judgement, he did not overlook the nuance of examining and planning the internal structure. This combined with Michael's discarding of Fredo- which I believe happened long before Michael's "you're nothing to me now" line opened the possibility of betrayel at the highest and closest level.

Exactly SC. It's important to distinguish between Vito's family and his Family.

Ok, then.

Having made these valid points, and knowing Fredo's 'history' and propensity to 'take sides against the family', had Michael not suffered this 'weakness' of an 'unsympathetic persona' and therefore lack of foresight into Fredo's discontent at being stepped over leading to his potential betrayal...what sort of role do you suggest he could've awarded Fredo that would make him feel 'important' yet not put the entire Organization in danger?

And if there were no such role that could be safely given to Fredo, how could Michael have handled him and kept him happy, had he posessed his father's 'people skills'?

Apple

Good question. Off the cuff, I can't think of a job that would befit a man such as Fredo. The quality that Michael was missing, that was pointed out to him by Hagen (in the novel) was how to say No. The Don counseled Michael that you can't say No to the people you love. But if you do, it has sound like a Yes, or you make them say no, regardless of the effort that it took. Taking that lesson and applying it to Fredo's situation might have solved the problem. The problem that I have with my own argument is that Tom's future was contemplated at great length between Vito and Michael. His being removed as consigliere was a move made by both for key strategic reason. Why didn't Vito, as father, take the time to consider Fredo's future in the same manner- regardless of his inability for important roles. Maybe Michael was simply conintuing his fathers ambivalence for Fredo.

Ok, so had he not suffered this 'weakness', how could Michael have applied this lesson to Fredo's 'situation' in a way that would make Fredo feel good and yet not put the Family in jeopardy?

And, in what way would Michael foresee Fredo's situation as a 'problem'? Is there any indication that Fredo expressed unhappiness at not having more important 'stuff' to do once Michael became Don? To anyone? To Tom? To Michael? To their mother?

I go back to Turnbull's statement, which basically points out that Michael's 'weakness' had nothing to do with lack of foresight into Fredo's potential actions....but into Hyman Roth's.

There is no direct evidence that I can think of Fredo expressing his unhappiness- but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We do know that he was identified by Johny Ola as a weakness in Michael's regime, right? Wouldn't that be reason enough for Michael to consider the soft underbelly of his regime an issue worthy of his attention? Had Michael paid even the slightest attention to Fredo, Fredo might have been able to summon the loyalty to his family and report that he'd been approached. Armed with this information, Michael most likely would have foreseen Roth's moves and end game and avoid the fiasco in Cuba.

Another weakness of Michael's was that he let Fredo's apparent weakness and stupidity inure him to the possibility of Fredo's betrayal. Fredo's seeming harmlessness made his treachery all the more dangerous. As Vito said in the novel: always make your enemies believe that you're less powerful than you are.

I've always believed that Fredo was in cahoots with Roth to a far greater extent than he let on. See this post for details:

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

How do we know that Michael didn't pay 'the slightest attention' to Fredo? Just because there's no direct evidence of this, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And again, in what way could Michael have paid attention to Fredo that would have inspired Fredo, already resentful at having been stepped over...to shun Roth's offer of 'something in it for him' and report his having been approached.

If we are going to attribute Fredo's betrayal to a weakness of Michael's, then we should be able to come up with specifics instead of 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' generalities.

As mentioned earlier, hindsight is 20/20.

We know from Fredo's "why didn't we ever spend time like this before" comment that Michael spent precious little time with him. This remark, in my mind, was Fredo's way of saying "this is all I ever needed from you", and "I would have looked at things differently had we done this before". Dreaming up specific tasks,responsibilities or reasons to engage Fredo was Michael's job, not mine. 20/20 Hindsight is not how the Don would have looked at the aftermath of Michael's carelessness. Wasn't there a lesson to be learned from Tessio's betrayal and the careful methodology that Vito walked Michael through to help him anticipate the weakness from within? Granted, it was done for different reasons, at different moments in time, but the underlying lesson was to anticpate and plan for the most or even least likely betrayal and attain 20/20 foresight.

I agree. Even in GF Michael didn't bother to explain or even tell his plan to Fredo, [i]especially[/] because he knew how weak Fredo was. No wonder Fredo got confused and perhaps his freaking out in front of Moe Greene was more dangerous than Sonny's behaviour in front of Sollozzo.
Michael should have known how much frustration had been seeded in Fredo's heart.

Michael could have made Fredo Consigliere and then make Fredo think he was advising him when all the time Michael was running the show, and still keep him in the dark when necessary. Also he should have put a tail on Fredo.

Good point...however, this in my opinion emphasises Fredo's weakness, not Michael's. "If only you'd spent more time with me despite all your responsities as Head of the Family (when it should've been me cause I'm oldest)...then I wouldn't have betrayed you and set you up to be murdered and gotten myself in a heap of trouble if you ever find out."



That would be true if you (and others) hadn't been stating throughout this thread that Michael should've foreseen Fredo's potential for betrayal and done something to prevent it. If you could support that by suggesting what he could've done, how he could've treated Fredo, then you're making a good case.



Not in terms of predicting Fredo's behavior. As you said, this was done for far different reasons.

And by the way...if Vito posessed such 'people skills' and 20/20 foresight that Michael lacked, wouldn't HE have foreseen Fredo's discontent at being passed over (at his own wishes), and advised Michael how to handle his brother? Or given suggestions on how to keep Fredo happy so he wouldn't one day be connned into working with the enemy?

Good thread though....welcome to the Board and keep it coming!!

Apple