Agree or disagree with Michaels decision

I've thought about this scene quite abit, I'll have to admit I agree with Michael's decision about executing Fredo. Fredo "has a good heart"...but honestly through out the movies he hasn't shown any loyalty or appreciation to Michael as a brother at all. Yes I understand he was "stepped over" but he had no right going behind Michaels back and associating with Michaels enimies for his own benefits. To me, that is a big sign of a traitor. In family a traitor should never be forgiven. I feel no sympathy for Fredo at all.

Disagree.

Michael's actions - not only allowing Fredo to live indefinitely, but allowing him access to the compound - demonstrate that he did not consider Fredo a threat.

Exile would have been sufficient. The murder was strictly personal and cannot be justified by business/security concerns.

I've thought about exile as well, but Fredo knows too much about the family business & would use that information to harm Michael as much as possible. Or he might even go to the senate and confess everything.

Again, if Michael had really considered Fredo's knowledge a threat, he would not have allowed him to live as long as Mama did, and certainly wouldn't give him free rein to the compound.

And Fredo would never have gone to the Senate, as that would have destroyed his ambitions of being a big shot in his own right.

Keep in mind that in the novel Tom tells Kay that treachery can't be forgiven. Although he was talking about Carlo and Tessio, the same could be applied by Michael to his own brother.

Agree with the decision.

Perhaps their mother being alive kept Fredo reigned in also.

Yes, that's it exactly. Fredo would have been a threat to the family for as long as he lived. As Puzo also pointed out (vis a vis Bonasera being called upon to bury Carlo), gratitude is very short-lived and breeds resentment. The depth of resentment Fredo showed Michael in the boathouse also showed that he'd never get over his being passed over. Another enemy of Michael's would have seen Fredo as a possible ally.

Okay, question - on one of the extras on the DVD set, Mario Puzo says he didn't want to kill off Fredo although I don't think he gave any reasons why on that one. [And yes - if I'm remembering this incorrectly, please let me know!]

I think Michael is very pragmatic when it comes to dealing with his enemies, but he had Fredo under house arrest from the looks of things. Yes, Fredo constituted a threat in many respects - but it seemed as if his death in the movie was more for the symbolism of tying up loose ends to parallel the same ending scene in the first movie.

Also - do you think Tom knew that Fredo was about to be killed? Is that touched on at any point?

There was no reason to kill Fredo. There was a reason to kill Tessio and there was a reason to kill Carlo. The reason is because Tessio was a powerful capo who was setting Mike up to be killed. Carlo was a punk sore at the world who helped plan Sonny's Murder. Now Fredo was not a violent guy I'm sure he had bodyguards working for him but he wasn't a cold blooded killer. I still dont believe he wanted Mike dead. some people believe that fredo's plan was always to have Mike killed but it just doesn't seem like that since Fredo had a good heart. There is no doubt he was pissed about being passed over but he never would hurt one of his brothers. I think at that point Mike became a full fledged psychopath and his paranoia took over

How realistic was it for Fredo to think that he was "passed over" ?

I mean, every guy has a reputation that stays with him. Everybody knows that Don Michael killed Sollozo and the police chief.

Everybody also knows that Fredo froze and started crying when the hit took place on his father.

He had to be completely delusional to think that he could ever be the Don after that.

It is not explicitly shown because I think that would have removed the shock of the action. But remember that Michael, Tom, Al and Rocco are all in the same room discussing business when Michael strikes out at Tom and says "...Are you gonna come along with me on these things I need to do or what" just after Tom has said "Michael, you've won, do you need to kill everyone?". I think Fredo is an unspoken subtext between the two brothers.

So I don't necessarily think Tom was in the room when Michael gave Neri an explicit order but then again why would Neri need one at that point. Michael had already told him that "nothing was to happen to Fredo as long as his mother was alive".

Tom is as good as anyone at picking up vibes so I think he knew Fredo was not long for this world.

I was going to start a seperate thread on something related to this, but it ties in well here with my opinion that Michael was right to kill Fredo.

More evidence of my long held belief that Fredo was lying to Michael in the boat house about not knowing a hit was planned was this:

Fredo said Johnny Ola told him Michael was being tough on "the
negtiations," and that if Fredo could lend a hand there wouldbe something in it for him on his own.

Think about this....it is nonsense. Fredo is making it up as he is going along. First of all, having been "passed over" Fredo had no clue what "the negotiations" were....at lease not from Michael. Let's say one day out of the blue Fredo suddenly says to Michael, "Say, aren't you being a little hard on the negotiations with Roth in that Cuba deal?" Assuming Michael was a total moron (which he was not) he would have said, "Good point, Fredo, I'll ease up." Then Fredo goes back to Johnny and says "Ok what is in it for me on my own?" Since Roth could not give Fredo anything within the Corleone family it would have to come from without. Would it be a sudden sellout of the Rosato operation with Fredo running it?
Maybe a piece of the casino operations independent of Michael?
I don't think Michael would go along with this. There was never a promise there was "something" in it for Fredo. The promise (on which Roth would have renegged) was if Fredo helped out with the hit (i.e. opened the drapes) there would be EVERYTHING in it for him. The implication was Fredo would be the new Don, and no longer the one who was passed over.
Fredo plotted to have Michael hit. He had to go just like Tessio.

Bt DT, what about Fredo's statement on the phone "You guys lied to me"?

Could have been anything...."Don't worry Fredo I guarantee this will be pulled off. You don't have anything to worry about."

Unless, of course, Manolo posed as Johnny Ola in Beverly Hills and told him some other lie.

Well, that's just it. We don't know what role Manolo may have played in it all.

Fredo's jealousy will always consume him whenever Michael is around...if Micheal were to forgive him on the situation that cost him his life..there is no telling if Fredo would attepmt it again..this time Fredo would make sure he doesn't fail on taking over Michael.

Fredo was in deep with Roth, and had to go, period. He bent over backward to make it appear that he had never met Johnny Ola, even shaking his hand at the table at the gala as if being introduced for the first time. Only after he got too much liquor in him did he slip up at the peep show, talking about how Ola knew where all those places were, etc., revealing to Michael, who was listening nearby, that he was indeed connected to Roth and Ola, and was therefore involved in his assassination attempt. I don't buy that he didn't know it was "gonna be a hit" for one second.

Opinion question: if Fredo hadn't slipped up, would Michael have ever known of Fredo's connection to Roth, and the assassination attempt?

Fredo had to go. I think that Michael was willing to let his brother live in exile, until the scene in the boathouse. Fredo revealed two things in that scene:

1. The depth of his resentment and jealousy.

2. Knowing that Questadt was Roth's man revealed a far greater knowledge of Roth's empire than a casual "Johnny said there would be something in it for me."

He envied Michael his brains, his position and his family (he tells Michael how he wishes Deanna was more like Kay). He is even convinced that his parents loved Michael more (Fredo was passed over by his father and his mother told him he was left by gypsies). The depths of Fredo's anger and envy, in addition to his past betrayal, meant that he would always be a threat to Michael and to the family. He had to be killed.

Nobody loves me but my mother...and she could be jiving too.
-BB King

Yeah, I think Fredo still had a chance before the boathouse meeting, but the boathouse meeting was essentially Michael putting Fredo through a test, and Fredo failed every question.

He would have slipped up sooner or later--probably sooner. But even before that, Michael still would have been obsessed about finding the traitor in his family. Even with Roth dead or on the run, the traitor would still be a threat to him. His suspicions wouled have led him to Fredo eventually.

While these debates over whether the killing of Fredo was justified are very interesting, I think just looking at that question misses the whole picture. Killing your own brother is rather like dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--even if it is morally justifiable and appropriate, it's still a terrible thing. Unless someone is a total psycho (and as I've said before, I totally disagree that Michael is), even if they felt their brother deserved to be killed they couldn't do it without deeply mixed feelings and deep sadness that the whole situation came about in the first place. It's totally different from, for example, Vito going back to Sicily and killing Don Ciccio to avenge his (Vito's) family. I think even if Michael was convinced he was justified in killing Fredo, it would still be something that would weigh heavily on him the rest of his life, as we saw in Part III (although it would certainly weigh less heavily that if he thought it had been wrong). If FFC wanted to present a less romanticized picture of the mob, he certainly succeeded with this plotline, regardless of how one judges Michael.

I think he suspected Fredo from the beginning. In the boathouse he tells Tom Fredo is weak and stupid. He also says the hit was botched, and that whoever did it was
very afraid. I also think his pointed question to Fredo in Havana about Johnny Ola
being there, and Fredo's lame lie that he'd never met him was a giveaway, as was Fredo's near confession while they were having a drink when Fredo angrily says,
Why couldn't we spend time together like this before? Before what? And then
th coup de grace at the night club when Michael pointedly "introduces" Fredo to Ola and Ola smoothly pretends they do not know each other, while Fredo is looking at his shoes....all giveaways. But Michael needed more, which he got at the Superman show.
I agre, however if Fredo had not given himself up directly Michael would have found out.

"Exile would have been sufficient. The murder was strictly personal and cannot be justified by business/security concerns."

Exile would not have been sufficient; Fredo was a threat as long as he remained alive. Maybe not in the immediate future, but somewhere, somehow down the line, maybe years, was the possibility of another betrayal (this one w/ Roth was not the first - only the most damaging).

The murder wasn't personal...it was business. Had Michael allowed Fredo to live ONLY because they were brothers (for there would have been no other reason), then THAT would've been 'personal'. The only personal aspect was the compassion Michael showed his mother in not permitting her to lose another son.

"Killing your own brother is rather like dropping the atomic bomb ... even if they felt their brother deserved to be killed they couldn't do it without deeply mixed feelings and deep sadness that the whole situation came about in the first place."

And what is conspiring against your own brother with a known rival, even if to smooth negotiations? Thereby knowingly or unknowingly, nearly causing his death and the downfall of possibly the entire Corleone Empire? Is that akin to dropping a bomb?

People seem to love to forget the seriousness of what Fredo did. Michael Corleone did not simply wake up one day and decide to kill his brother.

I believe Michael DID have mixed feelings and sadness that it all came about...however he knew what had to be done. Also...that statement that Fredo was nothing to him, neither a brother nor a friend...should be taken very seriously.

In short ...I agree with Michael's decision.

Fredo HAD to go.

You are right for all the reasons stated,kand also because it was always the philosophy of the Corleone family that traitors planning assinations of the Don had to die. Fredo should no more have been spared because he was Michael's brother than Tessio should have been spared "for old time's sake."

Would it change your mind if you thought that Fredo was more stupid than malevolent?
The late night phone call from Ola makes me think dumba$$ but the boathouse scene is obviously someone who's been grinding his teeth in resentment for years.

Despite the fact that Mike told Tom that Fredo was weak and stupid, he still maintained him in a position of authority. As he stated to Tom: "I give you complete power over ... Fredo and his men". He could have jettisoned him at any time and, thus, not put him in a position to threaten the family at that time. Finally, he did exile him from his crime family and that ended his usefullness to any of Mike's enemies. But Mike was a murderer. He murdered and he presided over a group of people who murdered with no thought about its morality. So, fratricide may have been as natural an act to him as ordering a hit on anyone else.

That's being way too harsh on Michael.

If Fredo was genuinely a threat, I don't think the threat would be totally removed simply by exiling him from the family. Fredo would still be resentful and could still have offered his knowledge of the Corleone family to Michael's enemies and conspired in future plots against Michael. He also could have testified against Michael in future prosecutions or government hearings like what we saw in Part II.

And I think it's ridiculous to say that the fact that Michael used violence means that fratricide was "natural" to him. Mafia families operate outside the law. They can't rely on the police and the courts for enforcement because what they are doing is illegal to begin with. While many mafiosi are much more violent than necessary, if the mob never used violence (and, at least sometimes, killing) they would have no power or credibility whatsoever. What reason, for example, would anyone who owed them money have to pay them, since they would have nothing to fear if they didn't pay? When Michael learned of the plot against him at the end of Part I, what was he supposed to do other than what he did? Send the heads of the other families to bed without dessert? I don't think the fact he was a Mafia don means that he had absolutely no feelings for anyone, even close family members. Tom and Vito were also members of organized crime and they both broke down and cried after Sonny's death.

[quote=Lilo...Would it change your mind if you thought that Fredo was more stupid than malevolent?...[/quote]

Of course not, because we already know he was stupid that's how he got snookered in by Ola & Roth.

Fredo's resentment toward Michael was understandable...but his stupidity led him to act upon that resentment. That's what made him dangerous, and what may have made him dangerous again in the years to come. He had to go.

I still don't see how he could provide any substantive information to any Corleone crime family enemies once he was exiled from the Corleone crime family. Someone may be able to provide an example of such information that would not be otherwise available to the underworld.

Agreed, Olivant.

And he didn't even exile Fredo fully - Fredo was still allowed at the compound.

While apologists on these boards abound, Michael himself clearly regretted killing Fredo later in life. In his confession to Lamberto, he explains the killing by saying "he injured me." Not, "he was a danger to me" or "he turned against the Family."

The fact that he does not seem similarly remoseful for anything else in his life - and was still an active participant in Mafia culture and participating in murderous acts - is further evidence that Michael himself did not believe Fredo deserved a death sentence, and that the killing was based on Michael's anger at Fredo's betrayal rather than any kind of clear-headed risk analysis.

While it was a well done scene and nice to refer to ... it's almost silly to factor anything in GFIII into this discussion.
Much GFIII was simply a wink and nod or to placate loyal fans of GF and GFII.

While of course Michael would regret it 'later in life'...he may have also regretted it a week later. He may have regretted it the moment he hung his head at the sound of the gunshot. His remorse isn't the point. The point is he handled Fredo's betrayal the way it had to be handled. By eliminating the traitor.

It's clear that Michael "regretted" it by the end of Part 2. The entire flashback is from Michael's point of view, and it's GUT WRENCHING.

But that has nothing to do with any of this. As a Mafia boss, Michael did what he had to do. As a brother or as a friend or as a human being, well, that remains to be seen. But Michael heading up a crime family supersedes all those other relationships. Fredo had to go because, in the words of Tom Hagen (the novel), "Treachery can not be forgiven."

Period.

PB and Apple:

It's clear we don't see eye-to-eye on this one. I realize that I'm in the minority, although I don't entirely see why. Rather than re-hashing our stances, or getting into point-by-point rebuttals, I'd like to shift the discussion a little.

You both base your opinions on the concept that treachery cannot be forgiven. I believe there are two reasons why it's in a Mafia Don's interest to follow that principle:

1. To eliminate threats
2. To discourage future traitors

But I'm not sure either one applies in this case.

A few of us have put forth what I consider to be a strong case that Fredo was not perceived to be a continuing threat by Michael or, if he was, one that could have been neutralized by exile, rather than death.

As for future traitors, Michael states that the loyalty of his men is based on business. I don't see how killing killing Fredo would make it a better business move for, say, Neri, to move against Michael. Michael did not need fear to keep his people in line. And, if he did, there was little doubt about his ruthlessness and determinated, regardless of how he dealt with Fredo.

So, in this one instance, I'm not sure the "treachery can't be forgiven" argument holds that much weight.

The English King Edward IV, forgave his brother George for one act of treason. George continued plotting though and the second time his brother was not so forgiving. He made George get off the planet.

Fredo put Michael in an impossible position.

I think that's part of it. That scene where Michael asks his mother about losing his family - maybe he was thinking about how he'd been covering for Fredo's lack of true talent for quite sometime. Obviously Michael had given his brother a regime or at least some men to oversee. Fredo was running a brothel, something that probably wouldn't have happened under Don Vito but might have been a concession to Fredo's limited talents. {"He's got a good heart, but he's stupid.") Maybe Michael realized that Fredo wasn't quite as stupid as he'd thought, and in fact knew just enough to present a greater danger than any outside force. It was an impossible position for someone like Michael who had to protect not just the business but his family.

Treachery can be forgiven. However, it need not be forgiven. One can simply choose not to act in response to treachery. Michael made a choice to act in response to it. He didn't have to respond other than he did by excluding Fredo from his crime family.

Sorry, but I never based my opinion on that, it was PB who offered the quote. In general I don't even like to weigh the film against the novel, although sometimes it does clarify things. In this case, nothing in the book has anything to do with Fredo's betrayal and death.

This had nothing to do with 'forgiveness'. It's quite possible Michael forgave Fredo once Connie spoke to him. But that would not change the what Fredo had done, and what it almost cost. Also...again, Fredo could have been quite docile in the aftermath of having been taken back in, but may have returned to his resentful, uneasy state in years to come. The chance could not be taken.

Even if you put THAT aside...what Fredo did was to betray not only his brother, but his FAMILY. He deserved no more and no less than Tessio, Paulie, or Carlo got. The ONLY thing that bought him any time was the fact that he and Michael shared the same mother.



No. First of all, Fredo would've bee utterly helpless 'in exile'. Second, even if her were 'neutralized', in 'exile', that would not last for long because he would eventually be located and approached by another of Michael's enemies, again ready to feed upon the stupidity and probably even deeper resentment than had been there for Roth to take advantage of.

Look...all of you who make those 'strong' cases for allowing Fredo to live are doing it for one reason, and one reason only...because he was Michael's brother. If he were not, no one at all would have a problem with what happened.

This was business, and you're all makin it personal.

So sorry for the "point-by-point rebuttals". Sometimes it's the only way.
Apple

Fredo's grudge against Michael made him fair game for Roth's treachery. Fredo's perceived weakness and helplessness were part of his attractiveness to Roth in his plot to kill Michael--who'd suspect Fredo?
Fredo in exile would be fair game for a smarter, more powerful gangster plotting against Michael.

What in the world is it that any of you believe Fredo could have done on behalf of Corleone enemies after he had been exiled from the Corleone crime family?

Hard to say...pretty much whatever they would set him up to do. Could anyone have imagined him assisting Roth the way he did?

Anyway, if you're Michael Corleone...why wait to find out?

Apple

This thing reminds me of a scene from the movie Casino, in which the bosses of the Midwest discuss the life and possible threat of one of their associates who has the potential of cooperating with the feds.

One of the bosses defends the guy by saying; "he's a marine and though as hell" etc. But then another boss says: "why take the risk?" ... And that's exactly how the mafia works. Brother or no brother, you don't get a second change.

But the real point is, what did Fredo do? How much was he involved?

If he did pull the curtains or whatever, he should be killed without remorse. Period.

But if he only did the thing we are suppose to believe, like giving some details to Johnny Ola and Roth... He should be killed nonetheless, because that stupidity can be fatal for anyone in the family. It makes him indirect responsible for bad things to happen. And as an underboss and brother to Michael he should have known more secrets about the organisation which could ruin everyone who's involved.

I think we're at an impasse, but I'm enjoying the debate so I'll give it one more try...



Yes, but earlier in the thread you wrote, "The point is he handled Fredo's betrayal the way it had to be handled. By eliminating the traitor." That seems to me to be roughly equivalent to my summation, albeit in different words.



But that's my point - that the chance was taken by Michael. He gave Fredo an indefinite lease on life. Mama could have lived for 20 more years. I see that as a clear repudiation of your assertion that Fredo was a continuing threat. You don't seem to factor that into your analysis.

And nobody has yet answered Olivant's question abuot what possible value Fredo in exile would have had to another Family.



True, I think it was all personal. And I agree that Fredo being Michael's brother should have made a difference, but only becuause he could be neutralized in other ways.

Fredo remained a threat to Michael so long as he could expose Michael's perjury. As an act of mercy toward his mother, Michael made sure nothing happened to Fredo while she was still alive. This doesn't mean Fredo was kept on a long leash. I am sure Michael had his phones tapped, and had him followed wherever he went as long as mamma was alive. When Michael "forgave" Fredo at Connie's request he had a perfect set up. Fredo was living on the compound and doing things like using Neri to drive his fishing boat. I am sure Al relished putting that bullet in Fredo's head once Fredo said his last "Hail Mary."

Not really. I was referring to eliminating a traitor. There was no reference to foregiveness.



You've got a good point there, I must admit. Michael did take the chance on his mother living many more years and therefore Fredo as well. Chalk it up to the writers, who apparently decided that mama would die within a few months, and therefore so would Fredo. Which brings us back to the topic that I still agree with Michael's decision on how to handle Fredo's betrayal.



Actually, Turnbull has and quite succinctly as usual. If you & olivant are looking for exact details as to what kind of a plan would have been set in place, then there is obviously no answer to that just use your imagination as to what might've been.



Being brothers didn't make a difference to Fredo, when he conspired against Michael in whatever way he assisted Roth. And...whether aware or unaware of it being 'a hit', that's exactly what he did, conspired against his own brother, for personal gain.

Michael probably knew his mother was already sick and her health was deteriorating rapidly, otherwise he wouldn't have made that decision.

Ok, forget about exile. What about the idea of permanent house arrest? Fredo is never allowed to leave the compound again. Period. He's stripped of all authority and responsibility and no one even talks to him. He has no access to the outside world. in short he becomes the mafioso in the Iron Mask. Would that have satisifed fears about possible future threats or is only death good enough?

So ... what's the point of 'house arrest'? Has organized crime ever even done such a thing...even in real life?

Why are you people trying so hard to save Fredo's skin when he very nearly got Michael killed?

Oh, yeah...because he's Michael's brother.

By the end of 2 , Michael has
-alienated and humiliated his adoptive brother
-slapped his wife and rejected her love
-ordered (or at least tolerated) the death and mutilation of an "innocent" hooker
-threatened the innocent brother of a recalcitrant lieutenant
-ordered the suicide of a broken old man
-and finally ordered and watched the death of his hapless and traitorous(?) older brother.

It's not just about arguing for Fredo's life; it's also about arguing for Michael's soul. All of those actions Michael took made sense taken by themselves but added up they condemn the character to hell , primarily via pride. His pride in his intelligence made him unable to relate emotionally to what was going on.

Giving an enemy a pass is of course unusual for any oc figure, real or fictional but IRL Magliocco got one despite plotting to murder Lucchese, Gambino and Maggadino.

And since I'm not 100% convinced that Fredo knew it was a hit I am somewhat open to him getting a pass because he is a brother. If I thought for sure that he knew it was a hit and was in on it then I'd say what happened was meant to be.

Yes, Apple. I'm wanting to know specifically how Fredo could have threatened Michael from exile because I don't see how he could have been. TB simply pointed out that Fredo was a threat. Okay, how was he a threat? As Woltz pointed up above, Mama Corleone could have lived for decades. Unless Michael figured she would die the next day, he was taking quite a chance leaving (so why di he do it?) Fredo alive since any information and relationships with Corleone enemies that Fredo had could have been put in play at any time. But that only works if Fredo had that kind of information which, from exile, he would not have had.

Perhaps as Lilo and PB have posted, Michael couldn't forgive treachery. It might be that simple.

[quote=Lilo]...It's not just about arguing for Fredo's life; it's also about arguing for Michael's soul. All of those actions Michael took made sense taken by themselves but added up they condemn the character to hell, primarily via pride.../quote]

Oh, I see - we're talking about hell now.

Well, sure...can you name for me an organized crime figure, past or present, dead or alive, fictional or non-fictional...who ever got to look forward to heaven? (And don't bother to mention Vito..he did plenty of killing in his younger days.)

As for Michael's soul, forget it. That was lost by the end of GF. In the context of what Fredo did, and the business they were raised in and in order to further protect his 'Family'...Michael did the right thing in having him killed.

Well it all depends on what a fictional person's (real-world) religious beliefs were and I don't want to go any further into that because it would likely needlessly offend real life religious members. My point in bringing up the impact of Michael's actions on his "soul" or psyche if you will is that they disturbed him, were not good for him or his personal family and were not things that set well with him or other people. In GF1 arguably Michael is acting in self-defense and defense of his father and brothers. In GF2 he is an aggressive power-mad expansionist. He's become exactly the sort of big-shot that his father started out resisting. His actions are much less defensible. As we know, FFC wrote it this way very much on purpose.

If IRL Maglicco could get a pass from people he wasn't related to despite having temporary control of an separate power structure (The Profaci Crime family) then fictionally Michael could have given a pass to his pathetic brother , who had no independent power structure and was very much under Michael's thumb. Did he deserve such a pass? If you think that he was directly and knowingly involved in trying to kill Michael and Kay, then obviously not. I think the film is deliberately ambiguous on that point thus the discussions over the years.

There is really no answer to that because it wasn't given a chance to happen. If I posessed the mind of a mafia kingpin out to eliminate my rivals, I might have some kind of plan for you.

But let me ask you this, since you want to get into 'specifics': Do YOU have a way to guarantee that even 'from exile' Fredo would definitely NOT one day posed a threat to Michael and/or the Family? Either on his own or via some rival plot?

Especially after that 'stepped-over' rant in the lakehouse?

Oh, and for what it's worth, what a riveting, bone-chilling conclusion that would've been to GFII. Fredo being put in a limo and driven out of town. Far more effective than a Hail Mary and gunshot.

That's probably true, no argument there.

It doesn't change the fact that Fredo had to go.

That was indeed harsh, everybody likes tom.



Also very harsh and unnecessary.



Lol. Who cares, she was just a .. oh I'm sorry. But we don't know if Michael was behind that, more likely Tom or Neri.



He had to to that, so that's quite understandable.



That broken old man should have known better and had it coming. Also understandable.



They gave Magliocco a pass because he was already very sick and everybody knew he would die sooner or later. But he was stripped from his position.

And that's what it's all about.

Apple,he was out of the loop. At that point he knew no more than Corleone rivals and the FBI about the Corleones. That is what substantively makes him not a threat. He had no specifics to convey that would make him a threat. if he had them, they would have been used.

So what if he was 'out of the loop'? So what if he had 'no specifics'?

Having information to share is not the only thing that makes someone like Fredo a potential threat. But what the heck, just for fun I'll play your silly game and suppose Fredo was banished to some suburb to bag groceries and posed no threat whatsoever, ever again...why on earth should be be spared after what he had done and the devastation his assistance to Roth nearly caused?

Oops...that's right, I forgot...he's Michael's brother.

olivant, I'm beginning to think you're just messing around to keep the thread going (not necessarily a bad idea), but if not you should really know better. Fredo had to go.


On another note:

"-slapped his wife and rejected her love"

He slapped his wife after she blurted to him in a very venemous way that she had aborted his child, and that she would not bring another one of his sones into the world. Doesn't make it right, but it's fair to say that she drew that out of him. Also, he did not 'reject' her love...he simply could not offer the same love in return. He did try but it wasn't in him.

"-ordered the suicide of a broken old man"

Unlike Fredo, Frankie knew the consequenses of what he'd done and the price he would have to pay.

God Apple, I never could fool you.

The closing of the door in Kay's face is to my mind the coldest scene in the movie-just as much as Fredo's murder. I think that Michael did deliberately reject any possibility of reconciliation or love there-again out of pride.

Bonanno also got a pass despite the fact that he would live for another 40 something years and despite the fact that after his initial reprieve he jumped back into the war. Even after that he wasn't murdered. So again, mercy is highly unusual but it has happened IRL with non-related people that were trying to kill each other.

Of course Michael knew about the hooker. And even if he didn't, as Boss, he's still culpable for her murder, both legally and morally.

All right, forget the morals part, he's a fucking gangster . But he's still responsible for her death.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced he did know, given that he gave Tom "complete power" before he left for Miami. To me, "complete power" means that Tom had the ability to do anything without needing to have Michael's approval.

And Michael's still responsible for the killing, even if he had no knowledge of it beforehand? Really? Does that mean Tony Soprano was responsible for Ralphie's killing of his (Ralphie's) girlfriend, even though Tony not only didn't know about it until after it happened, but vehemently disapproved when he found out? Sorry, I don't buy that.

That's because Bonanno was on the run and they couldn't get to him. And after years of conflict within the Bonanno family they finally decided to make a deal with him to stop the violence which was bad for business. And Bonanno wasn't just anybody, he was well respected in the underworld for being boss of his family for over 30 years. Bonanno made his bones when Gambino and Lucchese were dating cheerleaders.

IRL two different men get passes from non-relatives even though they were actively involved in murder plots (and in Bonanno's case) came up with the plan and did so twice and yet walked away clean. In fiction a man whose involvement is ambiguous and is related to the boss gets no mercy? Of course that will engender discussion, which is all good...

This is one of those few threads that makes me want to leave this board.

That analogy doesn't work, Vito. My contention was that Michael would have been legally responsible, and I still say he would have been.

You're right, of course Tony Soprano wouldn't be responsible for Ralphie killing his girlfriend. But that wasn't a business related murder; the murder of the hooker in "GF 2" was. And with Michael as the head of the "criminal enterprise" that killed her---in the interest of stengthening his criminal enterprise---he would have been responsible up and down the line for said murder, under the RICO statute. A sharp prosecutor would convict him.

Now I realize that "GF 2" took place roughly ten years before Robert Blakey wrote the statute (around 1970), but "The Sopranos" takes place in modern times, and you're the one who made the analogy. It's neither here nor there, anyway.

Turnbull knows much more about RICO than I do; I'm just going by what I read in Selwyn Raab's excellent "Five Families."

Can you help me out, TB?

You may be right from a legal standpoint, but logically it still doesn't make sense to me--unless Michael said something like "Do whatever it takes, I don't care what" beforehand.

Legal reasoning and common sense reasoning often conflict. For example, Jerry Capeci notes that Carmine Persico was convicted in the "Commission" case of participating in the killing of Carmine Galante (as if Galante's death was some kind of big loss anyway!) even though he actually voted against executing Galante. I don't think that anyone in everyday life would consider someone who voted against killing a person responsible for that person's subsequent murder.

As I have posted elsewhere all this happened before RICO, so it would have been harder to pin Michael down in a court f law. HOWEVER there could have been a conviction based on circumstantial evidence for conspiracy or for Michael being an accessory before or after the fact.

Is see I read that too quick, so I misinterpret it as you meaning Roth, lol. But you meant Pentangeli and that was indeed a sad thing.

I felt the need to correct this, so my bad.

I believe that something like that happened in the case of the hooker:

I've always held that Michael would never have given Tom a blank check to have a US Senator implicated in a murder, even though he told Tom, "You're gonna be the Don." Geary was a regular at Fredo's brothel--and with that hooker ("...we done it be-FOE-wer..."). Either Fredo or the manager (the guy who looks like Gene Vincent) would have noted that, and would have gotten that info to Michael. He would have regarded it as gold. So, after the "oily hair/silk suit" rap, Michael probably turned to Tom and Neri and said, "Nail his ass the next time he shows up at that brothel."

Nah. He would have said. "You know about Geary's dalliances? You know he is a regular at Fredo's place?" To which Tom would reply, "Who should I use, Rocco or Neri?" And Michael would reply, "Neri. This will involve drugging the senator and brutally killing a young girl who has no involvement in any of our business. Neri is the more brutal one."

I read somewhere that Neri was against hurting women?

I think the prostitute was drugged along with Geary, given that many other people were in that brothel, including in nearby rooms. The last thing they'd want would be for people to hear her screaming.

Also, while she certainly wasn't a gangster, I don't think it's completely accurate to say she was completely uninvolved in the Corleone family business. One of their activities was prostitution, and she was a prostitute who worked at one of the brothels.