hey everyone, i'm a first timer so if this is something that's already been discussed, i apologize. one thing i've never truly understood about gfII is the role fredo played as a traitor. i know he was in on a deal against michael, but if that was all, why would michael have his own brother killed over a business deal? thanks for the inclusion.

Hi there, Please check out this thread:

http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003914

You could also use the search feature and search by keywords "Fredo" and "Betrayal" to find more threads on this topic.
Good luck.

thanks afsaneh, i'll check it out.

Basically the extent of betrayal is going to be a much debated issue on this board. The truth is its left very ambiguous in the movie by FFC and I think this is a great touch cus it gives people like fuel for further debate.

From the level of the plot in the movie, we only really learn later at the "estate", where Fredo is staying, by his own emission to Michael, that it was Ola and Roth that conjured up the excuse that the negotiation with Mike weren't going very well and needed into the compound (presumably by subterfuge).

Fredo adds after that part that there was a "sweetener" in the deal. That there was "something in it for him" and there was never anything in it for him any other time.

This is basically all the information we know. We know that at least Fredo fucked up and was duped into letting them in. But even the conversation I just outlines is ambiguous because Fredo is indicating he was duped, but at the same time part of him was blinded by the greed that “something was in it for him”. We are left with the question how much did Fredo allow himself to be duped or if there was any conscious decision making here (indicating some level of betrayal).

It’s my opinion that Fredo was duped or fooled and the promise of this additional sweetener was simply a tool that Roth used to manipulate Fredo. Fredo was weak willed but trusting and very warm hearted, Michael even goes so far as saying he’s stupid. Even after the incident he is like this. But Fredo was so enamored with the promise of something he earned that it threw caution out the window. I don’t think Fredo would have ever consciously betrayed his family but he was fooled.

Well, Vito taught that nothing was just business. If assuming for a minute that Fredo did conciously and maliciously betray his brother (know of the plot), well this is pretty much very personally. I think his extreme reaction to this gray issue shows more Michael's tyranical nature by GF II and ruthless approach to the life.

thanks for the insight UB. that's kind of the impression that i got as well. i had always thought that i missed some key element of the betrayal that led viewers to understand and maybe even sympathize with michael's decision to murder fredo. you definately provide an interesting perspective as to how the vagueness of fredo's betrayal demonstrates the single-minded, cold-hearted nature of michael in gfII.

This question and related ones have been discussed several times here in the past.

Most everyone, I think, has agreed that the act Fredo committed was to leave the drapes open.

The deabate has centered around whether or not knew what the consequences of that act were to be.

True enough, there are little ambiguities left in that will remain unsolved because Michael killed Fredo and didn't ask him.

Let me just put it this way, if the windows were not open then Michael wouldnt have caught a glimpse of the men outside and wouldnt' have reacted as quickly and could have been killed easier.

In the GF Extras DVD FFC elaborates by saying he enjoyed adding a little twist or imagry in a violent scene that would make it memorable and distinct such as the towel wraped around the gun used by Vito to kill Fanucci or the clothes hanger used to kill Ola or Vincent shooting the last assailent through the hand when he killed him after the failed assasination attempt.

I will conceed that this is a true loose end in the movie, but I think this fact is weighed out by Fredo's own admission shortly after in the late night phone call from Ola that he wants nothing more to do with them and they didn't say it would be a hit, they indicated it was just to talk to him. So I beleive this outweighs any curtain that may have been left open by anyone.

What Fredo actually told and services performed for Ola and Roth is debatable. But Fredo was warned about this before, and he failed to heed the warning. Essentially, he sided against the family,(being disloyal). Tessio did the same thing, siding against the family.

I disagree with your accessment deathkiss. By Fredo's own admission to Michael and to Ola on the phone after the incident he was unaware that any harm would have come to Michael.

And as for being disloyal and siding against the family, I beleive that he thought every decision that he made was in the best interest of the family. He adhered to the fact that Roth and Ola wanted to talk to Mike because negotiations were going poorly. He was duped basically in beleiving that because of his nature, his childlike goodwill and trustingness. Perhaps at best you could rationalize that Fredo in a way wanted to help both sides by his actions and feared that if negotiations couldn't be helped along Michale could have been hurt.

There is far more evidence to back up this point of view than one of malicious betrayal on the part of Fredo. I agree that he was foolhearted, but at the same time, Fredo did have a childlike simplicity to him and this would not be tohe best ideology to have in a game of men.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the above.

Are you implying that Fredo did Mike a favor by leaving the drapes open?

If the drapes were not open, the killers would not known when to shoot, because they would not have known when Michael was in the room.

Having the drapes open was integral to the asasssination plot.

Michael, as he told Hyman Roth, was simply lucky.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the above.

Are you implying that Fredo did Mike a favor by leaving the drapes open?

If the drapes were not open, the killers would not known when to shoot, because they would not have known when Michael was in the room.

Having the drapes open was integral to the asasssination plot.

Michael, as he told Hyman Roth, was simply lucky.

My point is no one can assume the drapes were left open on purpose as part of the assassination plot. For all we know the assassins could have taken him out in the kitchen or any other place with uncovered windows. For that matter they could have waited til the lights were out and shot up the bedroom.

The drapes could have simply have just been left open and not closed by some random person. The assassins could have noticed the drapes were left open and capitalized on that. It's a pretty big assumption to say they were left open by Fredo or by anyone for that matter.

What I am trying to say is assuming Fredo actually left open the drapes contradicts the following points:
A) His character’s personality, which is well established as being niave, weak willed, good hearted and a bit too trusting (all these characteristics lead him to be easily manipulated). These traits are present before and after the events that transpired.
B) the facts that present themselves further on in the plot (i.e. Tom Hagen saying Roth tricked Fredo, Fredo admitting he was tricked and most significantly the Johnny Ola conversation that occurs sometime after the assassination attempt of which Fredo admits he didn’t know it was going to be a hit).
C) What I think is an underlying theme of GF II, which is the tyrannical nature of Michael Corleone, which entails a totalitarianistic way of dealing with problems of this nature.
D) I don’t think there is doubt in anyone’s mind that Fredo didn’t love his family and his brother Michael. I don’t think he would sell his family down the creek for anything but to benefit them, he after all was perhaps the kindest character in the whole trilogy with Mary as a possible rival.

Furthermore the open drapes effectively worked both ways, they allowed Michael to catch a glimpse of the killers and for them to see Mike in his bedroom. The drapes as such could have been added in by FFC and MP to allow for Michael to make a quick dodge before the shooting began. In essence working both in the favor of the assassins and aginst them

By FFC's own admission in almost every scene dealing with violence in the GF Trilogy he added some distinctive visual or incidental plot element that was intentionally added so that the scene could have some idiosyncratic memorable attachment to it. I mentioned a few examples 2 posts ago in this very thread. This could have been one such memorable piece that he added to make the scene more distinct to us. There is an equal possibility that this was his intentional use of this element in the film.

What I am trying to get at with this overall is there are big holes in the movie (questions left unanswered). This means we can not conclude that Fredo consciously betrayed Michael or was just duped into giving one piece of information that in Fredo’s mind would have been used to benefit the family and speed the alleged negotiations up. In fact under the evidence that's available in the movie we can more readily conclude the later due to the multiple references given to the fact that Fredo had been duped.

Furthermore if we take all the possible explanations or scenarios into consideration due to what is presented in the movie as plot pieces, we can conclude that there is a far higher probabilistic chance of the latter (Fredo being duped) that he former (Fredo consciously betraying his family).

By extension if we now assume that Fredo was somehow then contracted to leave the curtains open (the Johnny Ola phone conversation implicitly contradicts this premise BTW), then we are left with implicitly an even lower probability chance that Fredo actually was involved even this far in the plot. This would as a whole limit the logical possibility of him actually consciously betraying Mike.

What I am trying to get a overall is that everyone condeming Fredo as a traitor is a little bit of a limited assumption considernig what is presented as plot. What is presented at best amounts to him being betrayed and having his low sense of worth used by Roth as a tool for manipluating into the task.

If he was manipulated (we can conclude this as readily as any possibility), then there was no concious or malicious betrayal on the part of Fredo and if not Michael's lack of perspective on this issue resulted in the death of his brother for no reason other than being weak and niave and being manipulated into helping Roth who was at the time I may add a very close friend of the family.

IGNORE THE LAST POST (THIS IS THE CORRECT ONE)

What I am trying to get a overall is that everyone condeming Fredo as a traitor is a little bit of a limited assumption considernig what is presented as plot. What is presented at best amounts to him being betrayed and having his low sense of worth used by Roth as a tool for manipluating into the task.

If Fredo was manipulated (we can conclude this as readily as any possibility), then there was no concious or malicious betrayal on his part. If not for Michael's lack of perspective on this issue Fredo would not have been killed by his own brother for no reason other than being weak and niave and being manipulated into helping Roth who was at the time I may add a very close friend of the family and a long time business partner.

I don't think we can assume anything but that the drapes were left open intentionally.

A shrewdie like Roth would not have plotted an assasination attempt in which the hitmen wandered around the grounds, presumably in everyone's view, waiting for and hoping to get a clear shot at Michael.

I believe that Kay's comment to Michael ("Why are the drapes open?") is inserted in the dialogue specifically to make it clear to the viewers that the drapes were not normally open, and I also believe we are meant to conclude that someone left them open deliberately.

So the question then becomes "Who"? Well, if not Fredo that would mean that there was a co-conspirator, or another conspirator that Fredo wasn't aware of, a scenario that I find quite unlikely given the fact that it would have been totally out of character for Michael to not figure that out and find him.


Something that you may not know, UnderBoss, is that there's an early draft of a screenplay for GF II which has been floating around here for awhile (I think there's a link to it somewhere, but I can't tell you where).

I have a copy, from which I quote the following dialogue from the scene when Michael returns from Cuba and first meets with Tom Hagen:

Michael: "I want you to reach Fredo. I know he's scared, but have one of our people reach him. Assure him that there will be no reprisals. Tell him that I know Roth misled him."

Tom: "My information is that Fredo thought it was a kidnapping. Roth assure him that nothing would happen to you."

While I would agree that an unused script should not be the first source of information for facts which help us to analyze and understand various elements of the plot, consider the following:

If you accept Fredo's statements to Ola during the late night phone call ("You guys lied to me...you got me in deep enough already"), and if you accept Fredo's statement to Michael ("I didn't know it was gonna be a hit"), then the idea of Fredo believing that it would be a kidnapping is perfectly consistent with your points A and B in your post above.

[/b]
As far as points C and D are concerned, while they may very well be true, I don't see how assuming Fredo left the drapes open contradicts either one of them. Frankly, I don't see how assuming Fredo left the drapes open even has anything to do with "C"


I think every member here with more than a passing interest in the trilogy would agree that there are major plots holes in Part II. I would agree that Fredo did nothing that he thought would hurt his brother. I agree that he was duped and lied to by Roth and Ola. The only question is, what was he duped into doing, or what information was he duped into giving? If you believe, as I do, that the drapes were left open on purpose, then Fredo is the only logical candidate when we wonder who was responsible.

Quote

Furthermore if we take all the possible explanations or scenarios into consideration due to what is presented in the movie as plot pieces, we can conclude that there is a far higher probabilistic chance of the latter (Fredo being duped) that he former (Fredo consciously betraying his family).

This is an entirely separate argument than "Was it Fredo who opened the drapes?" And I would agree that he was duped, rather than trying to consciously hurt Michael.

I think the phone call from Ola supports, rather than contradicts, the premise that Fredo was the drape-opener. What else could Fredo have meant in his comment to Ola?

I also don't see the "even lower probablility that Fredo was involved this far in the plot"

I agree with much of your assessment. I think where it's unclear; reading much of the responses is the drapes and their implication to the guilt of Fredo. I do believe that there is a connection between the drapes and the murder. I don't think however that Fredo would consciously have participated in a plot to kill his brother. He could have far more easily been duped under the perfectly common notion that a long time friend of the family and his father's wanted access to the compound to talk to Michael for the benefit of negotiations. A conscious betrayal contradicts what we know about Fredo from the first movie and what’s established in the second movie and the book. Even after in the movie Fredo is still good hearted with Anthony, going fishing. Still the same old Fredo. Part of the emotional climax of the movie and the bitter taste afterward is the absolute horror we feel for Michael having murdered his own brother. I think this is complicated by the fact that we feel for much of Fredo and sympathize because of his nature and weakness, to us Fredo is more like a child than a man, he has a sorta innocence about him.

Where I am arguing however is the drapes issue. Because if the drapes were left open by Fredo it would imply some level of malicious intent or conscious knowledge that something was up. Meaning he would have indeed betrayed his brother. Having watched the movie and acknowledging the grey spots in the plot (which I think are great due to the fact that they allow us to know what Michael knows, maybe a bit more) I think it was FFC's contention to have a movie where a ridiculous scenario played itself out, one where Mike's brother apparently betrayed him but due to Mike's tyranicism and cold nature he would believe it was a plot and have him killed. I acknowledge Fredo fucked up, but Fredo having allowed the blinds to be open would be a different story. I am not discounting that possibility, I guess to a certain degree I don’t want to believe Fredo was capable of opening the blinds (LOL, it’s so simple but so significant). But looking at how vague things are left, I am also acknowledging there could have been another possibility.

I just rewatched the phone conversation with Ola and Fredo just now and Fredo says "Oh God, you guys got me in deep enough already"..... (ola talking) ...." You guys lied to me , I dont' want you calling me anymore". Fredo by his admission to Ola and to the viewer states that he lied to. Therefore the story he tells Mike being so consistent we can can conclude, although primarily form this scene that Fredo was lied to and duped into letting Roth and Ola's men into the compound. Fredo also was one thing, honest and very easy to read in all movies.

not to start a whole other online battle, but i have sometimes thought that not only did fredo know what was going to happen to mike, but the "you guys lied to me" phrase could be extended out to mean "you guys lied to me, you guaranteed me michael would be taken care of". i am not saying that this is what is meant by it, but another possiblity to the mystery.

robert

Underboss,
You and I both know that we don't know who left drapes open or if the hitman had gotten a lucky break and took advantage of opened curtians. So trying to discuss that is a mute point.

Fredo was not thinking about the family's welefare, rather by his own admission to Michael (boathouse scene), he wanted something on his own. He despised being 'kept' by his own brother. For this reason he sided against the family. Plus, there is two indications that he wanted to keep his relationship with Ola/Roth a secret. 1) the phone conversation with Ola: Ola tries to assure Fredo that Michael will never find out that they talked. 2) Fredo denying that he knows Ola/Roth to Michael in Havana.
Underboss, if Fredo is moving on the better interest of the Family, what gives with all the secrecy?

I agree with the ambiguousness of the Fredo issue and the finer points there in. I am simply saying more evidence is present to abdicate rather then vendicate Fredo.

And to answer your question ( Underboss, if Fredo is moving on the better interest of the Family, what gives with all the secrecy? ). Fredo knew his brother better than his brother knew him. Basically he had to be secretive because since what he thought was going to be a simple access to the compound to talk to Michael turned out to be a Hit. Well at that point Fredo must have been shitting himself because the facts basically were A) he gave them insider info to the coumpound and B) it was a hit and no matter which way you cut it, it looks more like he was conspiring with Michael and I think everyone knows what happens to conspirerers against Michael.

Could he then have come forward and said "look they told me they just wanted to talk"? Well no, he knew his brother's nature, his take on people who betray and he knew also that A) his story isn't beleivable and looks more like an excuse and B) it most likely would have gotten him killed.

I am not arguing he could have not betrayed him. I am just saying all the facts that are present point to the fact he was tricked and it's Michael's overzealous nature which caused his death.

Him keeping everything a secret is a perfectly rational action by someone who knows if the facts to what happened got out it would be his life on the line because of the way it looks.

Underboss,
The screenplay did not take us in the direction of your theories. No one knows if Fredo gave them info about the estate. I believe him when we told Michael he had no idea there will be a hit. The only thing I can see they used Fredo for in getting an insider track on Michael's next move (i.e, Is Michael going to make the deal with Frankie or bring his boys?).
All Fredo wanted to do is carve an income outside of the Corleones. But that does not negate the fact that Fredo went outside of the family.

That's all true enough and I agree with you on that one. I just see the overall premise of the movie is Michael being alone at the end of the movie. The reason why... his "enemies" have to be punished no matter what and by "enemies" I mean anyone who remotely betrays him.

What I liked about GF II was 2 things. One, Hyman Roth is an amazing adversary, using his brother and Pentangeli against him. Both Fredo and Pentangeli were in a way duped into "betraying" Michael. Pentangeli feared for his life and told the FBI about Michael's dealings. He then retracted his story. Poor Pentangeli must have been fearing for his life when he sought protection convinced Michael would try to kill him again. He then retracted his statement. Although he did attempt to in part redeem himself I could see why Michael wanted him dead.

Fredo on the other hand did go outside the family and was niave in dealing with Roth. But Roth too was an old business partner of his father and this is why Fredo didnt' question. He didn't use common sense and was niave, but that is Fredo. He then kills everyone who is his enemy and end up alone. I am not contesting your point and I think we see eye to eye on many issues in regards to this, but I do think that Fredo was duped, maybe not 100%, but there was an element. Seeing it as he was duped or he maliciously betrayed Michael won't satisfy the truth. Fredo was duped, had some jealousy against Michael and used this jealousy to cloud his judgement. He was guilty to a degree, but what is not clear is how much of the events of the hit was his self-deception, how much was him being fooled and how much was just being niave.

I mean if Ola came up to him and said "hey let us in we need to talk to Michael, you see negotiations aren't going too well and we need to talk to him, we want to do it face to face" that is alot different from saying "hey, let us in, we are gonna come in at midnight to see what Michael's up to" in that we dont' know what exactly was said to Fredo.

There is so much ambiguousness that we dont' know what happened. All we can conclude is A) Fredo was duped into thinking Ola and Roth being old time business partners with the family wanted to talk to Mike, B) Fredo's greed and jealousy for michael played a role in clouding his judgement by allowing him to gloss over the possibilities of this being a hit, also his niavety and trustingness has something to do with this. C) Fredo ignored any shred of common sense he may have had to any trouble that may have been coming. D) Fredo should have talked to Michael about this before hand. All this does indicate the he went outside the family, he could have been duped and there could have been some concious gambling taking place for his own benefit.

I think it's awesome FFC added this element of ambiguousness to this decision because I think it comes down to an issue of family loyalty and forgivness. Michael's coldness to this issue allows him to make the decision to kill his brother instead of forgiving him for even hearing him out more. Michael having beaten everyone then proceeds to punish everyone who has remotely crossed him, this is sub-tyranical behavior.

Also what screen play are you referring to? I have heard mention of one that was not directly used in GF II, but was an earlier one. If I could get a link, that would be great. Also there is the possibility that FFC did change the story a bit last minute to change the plot or what not. I still would like to take a look at that script.

It could be this, an early draft of Part II (the one that also shows Hagen having an affair with Sonny's widow)

http://www.allmoviescripts.com/scripts/17584365683f3d9aa7445d6.html

Sure they're different. Even Fredo may have refused the latter request. But you conveniently leave out the hook...which was that there was something in it for Fredo if he helped them out.

So, he helped them out. Regardless of the words they used to reel him it we can't get around the fact that Fredo did business with Roth & Ola. Behind Michael's back. He turned traitor.

And we DO know what was said to Fredo, because he later tells Michael at the boathouse what was said.

Best,
AppleOnYa

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UnderBoss:
Also what screen play are you referring to? I have heard mention of one that was not directly used in GF II, but was an earlier one. If I could get a link, that would be great. Also there is the possibility that FFC did change the story a bit last minute to change the plot or what not. I still would like to take a look at that script. [/QUOTE
In every movie there is one screenplay (the one that is actually filmed). The others are drafts (rejections). At least in this post you are headed in the right direction. I agree with apple's clarification.