1 registered members (1 invisible),
719
guests, and 23
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,930
Posts1,073,144
Members10,349
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
Why tell Fredo?
#845070
06/07/15 05:51 PM
06/07/15 05:51 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624 AZ
Turnbull
OP
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624
AZ
|
This has been discussed before, but I’m raising it again, hoping we might have some new insights:
Michael didn’t initially suspect Fredo of complicity in the Tahoe shooting. When he told Tom, “Fredo? He’s got a good heart. But he’s weak and he’s stupid—and this is life and death,” he was saying that Fredo didn’t have what it took to run the family in his absence—not that he thought Fredo might be a traitor.
Some here think Michael might have had Fredo bring the $2 million to Havana in order to test him. I think Michael had sound tactical reasons: Tom was needed to run things in Nevada. And, by not using Rocco and/or Neri, Michael was signaling Roth that he still hadn’t ruled out one or both as traitor(s).
And yet: as most of us have remarked, Michael gives Fredo two suspicious, piercing looks: when Fredo asks if anyone he knows is in Havana (and Fredo denies knowing Ola and Roth); and at the nightclub, when Michael “introduces” Ola to Fredo, and Ola says, “we never met.” The close-ups on Michael’s face show Michael looking intently at Fredo’s response, as if trying to see if he was lying.
Also, Michael probably arranged for the plane to take him out of Havana as soon as he learned when and how Roth planned to have him killed. That was before he had his intimate chat with Fredo over drinks. But, he didn’t tell Fredo about the plane at that time--he waited until after he learned that Fredo was the traitor--possibly another sign of suspiciousness.
With that in mind: Why, if Michael had any suspicions of Fredo at all, did he let Fredo in on Roth’s plan to kill him—and his plan to kill Roth—even telling Fredo that “Hyman Roth will never see the New Year"? What’s more, Michael didn’t even need Fredo to do anything: when Fredo asks what he can do to help, Michael says, “You just go along.” What was he thinking? Why did he tell Fredo?
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Turnbull]
#845080
06/07/15 07:39 PM
06/07/15 07:39 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029 Texas
olivant
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029
Texas
|
Well, to start with TB, I disagree about Michael's "looks". I don't see those looks at all and it was Fredo who initiated the knowing people in Havana conversation. FFC had Fredo bring the money to Havana to give Fredo a segue into the Havana scenes.
Of course, some will always struggle to know why Michael told Fredo anything about his plan to murder Roth if he suspected Fredo. For me, part of the answer is easy: Michael didn't suspect Fredo (there were no "looks"). However, Michael really didn't need to tell Fredo anything about his plan.
You're no doubt right about Michael's arrangement for the plane to exit Havana. Given that Michael revealed to Fredo that the Cuban military would carry out his murder, he probably needed the plane to immediately exit Cuba to avoid his own murder. I think that his failure to tell Fredo about the plane earlier was simply FFC's choice to add to the drama of the chaotic New Year's eve scene. But, Michael could not know of that chaos in advance, so why did he place himself in the lion's den? Remember, he leaves the party when he does only because he sees signs of Batista's collapse.
Last edited by olivant; 06/07/15 07:40 PM.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: olivant]
#846049
06/13/15 05:02 PM
06/13/15 05:02 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238 The Ravenite Social Club
Don Cardi
Caporegime
|
Caporegime
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238
The Ravenite Social Club
|
...... Michael didn't suspect Fredo (there were no "looks").
.....I think that his failure to tell Fredo about the plane earlier was simply FFC's choice to add to the drama of the chaotic New Year's eve scene. My thoughts....... I think that Michael did indeed suspect Fredo, along with Rocco and Neri. Difference being that he had no emotional attachment to Rocco or Neri. But being Fredo's brother, he did have an emotional attachment so a part of him didn't want to believe that his own brother would set him up. I believe that Michael was in conflict over Fredo within himself. The cunning smart untrusting side of Michael battling whatever was left of the humane loving side that he had for his brother. The possible truth vs. emotion. " Now, one thing that I learned from Pop was to try to think as people around you think. Now on that basis, anything's possible." And that is why he did NOT tell Fredo earlier about his plan to leave Cuba by plane. He was not going to let his emotions, his love for his brother, cloud his judgement and the possibility that Fredo could have been the traitor at that point.
Don Cardi Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: ToadBrother]
#846427
06/16/15 11:40 AM
06/16/15 11:40 AM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773 Pittsburgh, PA
The Last Woltz
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773
Pittsburgh, PA
|
Michael clearly distrusted, if not outright suspected Fredo of treachery by the time he got him to come to Cuba with the $2 million. The whole point was to keep Roth off balance. Roth is obviously getting suspicious that Michael isn't putting his money where his mouth is, so the money has to be produced. But what better way to keep Roth believing that Michael is looking elsewhere for the traitor than to have the actual traitor brought to Havana with a suitcase full of money for Roth.
The whole Havana scheme was about Michael confirming his theory. He knew whatever investment he made was going to be lost, thus the reason for him telling Roth and the birthday guests about the rebel blowing himself and the police officer up. Being in Havana was all about sussing out who exactly had betrayed him, and I think the fact that it was Fredo who showed up with the money was all about Michael already having guessed that it was Fredo.
And remember Fredo almost spills the beans when they're having banana daiquiris. I suspect the entire purpose of that last outing between the two brothers was about Michael giving Fredo a chance to do the right thing and admit whatever his role was (perhaps Michael wasn't sure of the extent of Fredo's treachery). I agree with several of your points. But the theory that Fredo bringing the $2M indicated that Michael knew he was the traitor doesn't make much sense to me. Good point about Michael's story of the rebel blowing himself up. Michael bringing that up was unusually injudicious. I think that was one last dagger at Roth, with Michael figuring that even if he doesn't survive he might have scared off some investors and cost Roth some $$$. But none of this addresses the original question: Why Michael would have mentioned to Fredo about his plans if he thought Fredo was the traitor? I think it's a lot easier to explain away a few possibly searching questions and looks to Fredo than it is those remarks. That, plus Michael's stunned reaction when Fredo slips up, force me to believe that Michael did not really suspect Fredo.
"A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!"
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: The Last Woltz]
#907757
03/01/17 12:53 PM
03/01/17 12:53 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 341 North America
Mr. Blonde
Capo
|
Capo
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 341
North America
|
Good point about Michael's story of the rebel blowing himself up. Michael bringing that up was unusually injudicious. I think that was one last dagger at Roth, with Michael figuring that even if he doesn't survive he might have scared off some investors and cost Roth some $$$. I think this is something that deserves more attention. Clearly, Roth was upset with the conclusion of this conversation. However, while it was going on, when Michael noted that the soldiers were paid while the rebels weren't, Roth prompted Michael by asking "What does that tell you?". That's when Michael responded "They (the rebels) could win." but why would Roth ask that question, right there, with everyone paying attention? What kind of an answer was he expecting from Michael?
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Mr. Blonde]
#907760
03/01/17 01:38 PM
03/01/17 01:38 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624 AZ
Turnbull
OP
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624
AZ
|
Good point about Michael's story of the rebel blowing himself up. Michael bringing that up was unusually injudicious. I think that was one last dagger at Roth, with Michael figuring that even if he doesn't survive he might have scared off some investors and cost Roth some $$$. I think this is something that deserves more attention. Clearly, Roth was upset with the conclusion of this conversation. However, while it was going on, when Michael noted that the soldiers were paid while the rebels weren't, Roth prompted Michael by asking "What does that tell you?". That's when Michael responded "They (the rebels) could win." but why would Roth ask that question, right there, with everyone paying attention? What kind of an answer was he expecting from Michael? A possible explanation: Once Michael landed in Cuba, Roth could have had him killed at any time. But, Roth was greedy for the $2 million, and Michael knew Roth wouldn't have him killed until Michael handed over the money. Michael's overarching need was to string Roth along until he could find out who was the traitor in his family; hence his continual stalling and raising doubts about the rebels. To Oli's much earlier point about Michael entering the lion's den: The Tahoe shooting proved to him that Roth would stop at nothing to have him killed--even if Kay or his kids got shot up in the process. But, Michael was the target. By removing himself from the Tahoe compound, he was removing the target from proximity to his family. Roth's greed for the $2 million, and Michael's foreknowledge of when and how Roth planned to have him killed, were his only weapons in Cuba. He showed real coglioni, and a cool head.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: olivant]
#908218
03/07/17 11:18 PM
03/07/17 11:18 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624 AZ
Turnbull
OP
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624
AZ
|
I also believe that Michael was simply being prudent about committing to his Cuba investment because of the rebel activity. His witnessing of events simply confirmed his prudence. [/quote] True, Oli. And, it raises another question: Had Michael decided, during his Havana sojourn, to give up on Cuba forever? Everyone except Batista knew, in December 1958, that Batista was finished. But, there was no reason at the time to believe that gambling also would be finished. Tourism, with gambling at its center, was Cuba's third biggest industry, after mining and agriculture. Castro hadn't declared himself a Marxist, and had even reopened the casinos after the hotel and casino workers demonstrated against him. Michael was obsessed with getting Roth's Havana gaming empire, which probably would have made him the biggest legit gambling operator in the Western Hemisphere. I just can't see him walking away and never turning back.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Turnbull]
#908233
03/08/17 10:09 AM
03/08/17 10:09 AM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773 Pittsburgh, PA
The Last Woltz
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773
Pittsburgh, PA
|
True, Oli. And, it raises another question: Had Michael decided, during his Havana sojourn, to give up on Cuba forever? Everyone except Batista knew, in December 1958, that Batista was finished. But, there was no reason at the time to believe that gambling also would be finished. Tourism, with gambling at its center, was Cuba's third biggest industry, after mining and agriculture. Castro hadn't declared himself a Marxist, and had even reopened the casinos after the hotel and casino workers demonstrated against him. Michael was obsessed with getting Roth's Havana gaming empire, which probably would have made him the biggest legit gambling operator in the Western Hemisphere. I just can't see him walking away and never turning back.
What other option did Michael have but to walk away? Even if Fidel kept the casinos open, Roth was clearly Batista's guy. There's no way he would have been allowed to keep control of the casinos under Castro. Michael would also have been perceived as aligned with the Batista regime, if he was known at all. Even if he was not on Castro's radar, there was no indication he had any avenues through which to ingratiate himself with the new regime and get himself a piece of the pie. With Batista's abdication, all paths to the Havana gambling empire were closed Michael, at least for the time being.
"A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!"
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: The Last Woltz]
#908270
03/08/17 09:50 PM
03/08/17 09:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,011 Australia
Kangaroo Don
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,011
Australia
|
Ref: thread Michael's choices post by user Lana 24 February 2017 Extract: Maybe so!
“The Pope...the Holy Father himself…. has this very day blessed Michael Corleone and you think you know better than the Pope?!!”
pulling your leg! aside, Tom-anuch! Woltz, Hey, I had a hundred button men on the street, twenty four hours a day looking for you! I had been somewhat 'doubtful' in hindsight that my 'Aussie' sense of humour [ pulling leg] even when quoting Godfather lines! may not have come across humorous as I intended, to everyone on an international message board If so, I apologise and will in future “try to think as users around me think! in Gangster BB style! Sorry Woltz and Thanks
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: olivant]
#908278
03/08/17 11:24 PM
03/08/17 11:24 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624 AZ
Turnbull
OP
|
OP
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,624
AZ
|
One characteristic of gangsters is that they think everybody has a price. As has been pointed out, noone knew (except Kruschev and Che) that Castro was a communist. So, Roth and Michael figured they could do business with Castro (although Roth doesn't seem to realize that the rebels can win). However, Michael wants to wait because he does think the rebels can win and the $2 million can better serve Michael's interests if it is paid to a possible Castro regime rather than to Batista in his waning days in power. That's what I was thinking, Oli--biding his time, believing everyone has a price. But (and this is a reach, I admit), perhaps the subpoena to appear before the Senate subcommittee changed his mind. He clearly did not want to be identified as a casino owner--in his testimony, he admitted only that he owned "some stock in the [Nevada] hotels." Making a move on the new Cuban regime would have been risky at that point.
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Kangaroo Don]
#908293
03/09/17 09:56 AM
03/09/17 09:56 AM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773 Pittsburgh, PA
The Last Woltz
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773
Pittsburgh, PA
|
Ref: thread Michael's choices post by user Lana 24 February 2017 Extract: Maybe so!
“The Pope...the Holy Father himself…. has this very day blessed Michael Corleone and you think you know better than the Pope?!!”
pulling your leg! aside, Tom-anuch! Woltz, Hey, I had a hundred button men on the street, twenty four hours a day looking for you! I had been somewhat 'doubtful' in hindsight that my 'Aussie' sense of humour [ pulling leg] even when quoting Godfather lines! may not have come across humorous as I intended, to everyone on an international message board If so, I apologise and will in future “try to think as users around me think! in Gangster BB style! Sorry Woltz and Thanks Are you apologizing to me? No need to do that. I got the joke. As you Aussies say, no worries, mate.
"A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!"
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: The Last Woltz]
#908553
03/13/17 02:01 AM
03/13/17 02:01 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,011 Australia
Kangaroo Don
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,011
Australia
|
Are you apologizing to me? No need to do that. I got the joke. As you Aussies say, no worries, mate. Thanks Woltz you are good! Spot on! “ no worries, mate” I am impressed! And gracious
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: The Last Woltz]
#908977
03/19/17 04:33 PM
03/19/17 04:33 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,461 Green Grove Retirement Communi...
OakAsFan
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 4,461
Green Grove Retirement Communi...
|
True, Oli. And, it raises another question: Had Michael decided, during his Havana sojourn, to give up on Cuba forever? Everyone except Batista knew, in December 1958, that Batista was finished. But, there was no reason at the time to believe that gambling also would be finished. Tourism, with gambling at its center, was Cuba's third biggest industry, after mining and agriculture. Castro hadn't declared himself a Marxist, and had even reopened the casinos after the hotel and casino workers demonstrated against him. Michael was obsessed with getting Roth's Havana gaming empire, which probably would have made him the biggest legit gambling operator in the Western Hemisphere. I just can't see him walking away and never turning back.
What other option did Michael have but to walk away? Even if Fidel kept the casinos open, Roth was clearly Batista's guy. There's no way he would have been allowed to keep control of the casinos under Castro. Michael would also have been perceived as aligned with the Batista regime, if he was known at all. Even if he was not on Castro's radar, there was no indication he had any avenues through which to ingratiate himself with the new regime and get himself a piece of the pie. With Batista's abdication, all paths to the Havana gambling empire were closed Michael, at least for the time being. If I recall, the mob threw money at Castro, too. They saw the revolution coming and played the field. Castro burned them in the end. My guess is Castro played the mob, telling them they'd be able to continue running their casinos in exchange for financial support, then burned them once he took power.
"...the successful annihilation of organized crime's subculture in America would rock the 'legitimate' world's foundation, which would ultimately force fundamental social changes and redistributions of wealth and power in this country. Meyer Lansky's dream was to bond the two worlds together so that one could not survive without the other." - Dan E. Moldea
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Turnbull]
#932529
03/09/18 01:11 PM
03/09/18 01:11 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029 Texas
olivant
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,029
Texas
|
One thing to consider about an entire movie's content is how the director conveys information to the prospective audience. In this case, how do we learn that Michael intends to murder Roth in Cuba? Well, FFC chose to convey that information to us through Michael's conversation with Fredo. Of course, it's probable that FFC knows that the audience would ask why tell Fredo. However, FFC feels that he has to convey that information to us, but his ways to do it are limited. Of course, Fredo's part of that conversation may contribute to our view of Fredo as a somewhat sympathetic character which is a theme that traces its origins back to GFI. So, FFC simply re-enforces that view of Fredo through the conversation.
It's also a way for FFC to rock our emotions back and forth between sympathy for Fredo and loathing of his stupidity, insecurity, and cowardice. That's one reason that I am exhausted after watching GF I, or II, or III.
Last edited by olivant; 03/09/18 01:12 PM.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: Why tell Fredo?
[Re: Turnbull]
#1006181
02/27/21 04:34 AM
02/27/21 04:34 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 89 Adelaide, Australia
lucab19
Button
|
Button
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 89
Adelaide, Australia
|
And yet: as most of us have remarked, Michael gives Fredo two suspicious, piercing looks: when Fredo asks if anyone he knows is in Havana (and Fredo denies knowing Ola and Roth); and at the nightclub, when Michael �introduces� Ola to Fredo, and Ola says, �we never met.� The close-ups on Michael�s face show Michael looking intently at Fredo�s response, as if trying to see if he was lying.
It was totally unreasonable for Fredo never to have met Ola, in my opinion. Fredo was with Moe Greene for years. Greene was Roth's long time friend and, even, protege. Ola was Roth's "Sicilian messnger boy". So, it stands to reason that Ola would have visited Vegas - on business mutual to both Greene and Roth - probably on many occasions, during Fredo's time there. That he wouldn't pay his respects to the great Don Corleone's son seems, as I say, totally unreasonable. And also, if he remembers Tom from the old days, how would he not have, at the very least, met Fredo. But he then goes on to give Fredo the dirt on Roth's plans. A very ambiguous scene.
|
|
|
|