Would you have let Carlo lived?

If you were Michael, would you?

Just wanna know what everyone here thinks.

No

I'd say 'No' as well. But if you think about Connie's position, you might hesitate a little because after all, you wouldn't want to make your sister a widow, like Sonny said. I really have sympathy for Connie.

But wasn't she a spoiled Guinea Brat?

???
I never understand these kind of threads about "Would you kill this or that guy.
Must be an American thing.

Generalization isn't fair, Danito. I just want to know what people here think of Carlo's fate. Maybe someone disagrees with Michael's decision to kill him, and I'd like to know why.

There's no way I would have let Carlo live. In a hypothetical setting if I had Michael Corleone's power, it would simply be an impossibility to let the man responsible for my brother's death escape swift and brutal retribution, regardless of him being my sister's husband. In addition to this, letting Carlo live would pose a direct threat to the family based on his treachery and his disrespect for the Corleones.

[quote=Danito
Must be an American thing. [/quote]

Actually it's a "sissssssilian thing."

The only thing wrong with Michael's killing Carlo is that Carlo should have suffered more.

Hm, the question in this thread is "Would you have let Carlo lived?" which equals: "Would you mind being a killer?"

It's one thing to talk about a drama, a book or a film. It's another thing to suggest that killing is a legitimate solution to problems.

Well, not being a mafioso, I don't think I would kill anyone, I thought the "you" was rhetorical.

Murder is murder. Other than demonstrable self-defense, murder is a function of avarice. Since Mafiosi allow their avarice free reign, it's not surprising that they murder at will, even rationalize it. It's the lack of that state of mind the precludes most of us from murdering. So, yes, I would have let Carlo live.

Since Michael chose to be Don, he had to kill Carlo. Even if he forgave Carlo's treachery personally, it would have shown him to have a "weak spot" that his foes would have exploited. And, as Tom explained to Kay (in the novel), "...treachery can never be forgiven...they [Tessio and Carlo] would have been a danger to all of us, all of our lives."

As Roth said, "This is the business we've chosen." Murder comes with the territory.

Hesitate but still have to take him out. Agreed.




Absolutely.




Yep. Just like Fredo.
It doesnt matter who you are. You are gone.

Let's see.

If I were "Michael", and Carlo, while married to my sister, set up my brother to be gunned down by an enemy, after which he continued for years to live off my family and would've gone on doing so and may have even fingered others down the line had his betrayal never been discovered....

Then no, I would not have let Carlo live. I would have had no problem standing Godfather to his newborn son while all the while planning his execution. The feelings of my sister Connie, much as I love her, would play absolutely no role in the murder of this weasel of a scumbag she married.

And for the record, 'if' I were "Michael"...I would not have let Fredo live, either.

Apple

God! After that, can any of we Board members feel safe?

I love you Apple. I was only kiddin' before. Your posts are the best. I was on your side from the beginning. You believe me, don't you? Please don't hurt me.

If the beating of my father's sister by her husband did NOT result in his certain death at the hands of my father, then surely, his framing the murder of my father's older brother would do the trick.


(But that's not me, of course. I'm in concurrence with W.A Mozart's Queen of the Night: 'Rejected, be forever, all the bonds of kin and blood.')

I think Michael did the right thing. Well, it wasn't right in a moral or legal sense, but the Corleones were a mob family, so murder came with the terrioty. I think Michael had every right to avenge Sonny's death. I never got why Connie got so upset at Michael for having Carlo killed. Carlo was a lazy, philandering, abusive bum who only married Connie to gain position in the Corleone family. Not only that, but Carlo set up the hit on her oldest brother who died trying to protect Connie from Carlo. Given the way Carlo treated her and his role in Sonny's death, Connie should have been happy that he was gone. I mean what was Carlo doing for her? He was a sorry excuse for a husband and man.

I personally would've liked it better if Coppola & Puzo had stuck to the original story in the book where Connie's intial reaction to Carlo's death was one of shock and anger, but that she forgave Michael soon after. But then I guess if it was written that way in the movie, there would not have been an explanation for Connie's coldness and self-destructive behavior in Part 2. Like she told Michael when she begged him to forgive Fredo, "I did things to hurt myself so that you would know I could hurt you."

Just thought it bears mentioning again.



I understand that Michael is a mob boss and that his brother, a person who is someone he should be able to trust with his life, betrayed him. In a situation where Michael felt that Fredo was a direct threat to him and a direct threat to the Corleones, killing him need not be the only solution. A permanant exile, or even forgiveness could have been other options. Although this would run contrary to the utterly ruthless nature of Michael and in order for the viewer to feel this intense ruthlessness Fredo had to be killed. I believe that Mario Puzo and F.F. Coppola were divided on this issue and Coppola won out.

On a personal level I couldn't fathom any circumstance of killing my own brother, ever.

Aren't you generalising, there?

If I was Michael, then the question eradicates itself.

If I were me, and in Michael's position: yes, I'd let him live. But my philosophy differs to Corleone's. I genuinely believe humanity can shine through leadership.

Anybody who tailgates my posts the way you do can NEVER be in danger, olivant!!! As one of many puppies I've known on the bb you're safe, believe me.

See you in the next topic!!

Apple

If I were Michael and / or were a man of his stature living in his kind of world, than the answer is no, I COULD NOT let a man like Carlo live.

DC! I haven't seen you in a fortnight

I think the key here is "if I were Michael." Yes, being Michael with his genetics, disposition, experiences, heart and soul, emotions, intelligence, motivations, and goals and objectives, I would kill Carlo.

My father always answers rhetorical questions just like that, Olivant. If you ask him, "What would you do if you were in my shoes," his answer is ALWAYS, "What would I do in your shoes, or what would I do if I were you in your shoes?"

Not because he's my father, but I happen to agree with his thinking. It's two totally different scenarios.

Oh, if I were Michael, Carlo would be DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

Of course no one wants to think about having to make a decision like that. But if you cross that scenario in the real world and like Fredo, your brother tries to have you killed once(drapes), maybe twice(Fredo maybe telling Roth that he wont live to see the new year). Do you really let him stick around for more attempts? He may succeed!

"This is life and death"

Carlo absolutely had to go, no question. Blood is thicker than water.

You know I was gonna come up with a long and complicated answer for this but really the only thing I can say is thank God I don't live in Michael Corleone's world.

I think that one of the differences between Vito and Michael is that Vito would have considered Fredo's betrayal a result of Vito's own carelessness, so that his response would have been to lock Fredo in the cellar or something.

I guess the next question down this line is what Michael would do if one of his children had taken sides against the Family?

Santino Brasi : "Has anyone been able to get in touch with Cardi?"


Pizzaboy : "Eh, I've been trying all night. He might be shacked up."

He'd have to die. Who know's who he would go after in the family next.

But like someone mentioned I'd make him suffer so much he'd want to die.

If he would take part in "offing" Sonny, then he would take part in "offing" Michael if given the chance. Like Michael said, "Today I settle all family business". That included taking care of Carlo. It was business, not personal.

What exactly would Michael do with Carlo if he was alive? Would he have him attend family functions with his wife and allow his mother to tell him "don't interfere?" I don't think so.

If I were Michael, in his shoes... Carlo = DEAD

If I were ME, in Michael's shoes... Carlo = DEAD

This is what is at the heart of his decision to kill Carlo, IMO.

Yes I would have given the order to have Carlo killed, after that treacherous act by Carlo no way could Micheal have allowed Carlo to live, Carlo being Married to Connie wouldn't have mattered.

And like Turnbull mentioned, had Michael allowed carlo to live, it would have shown that Michael was weak, thus allowing his enemies to take advantage.