Why tell Fredo?

We've discussed this before, but I wanted to give it its own thread, and see if anyone has any new insights:

Why did Michael tell Fredo that Roth was planning to kill him, and that "I've already made my plans...Hyman Roth will never see the New Year."? He didn't need Fredo to help him ("You just go along as if you know nothing..."). Fredo was on the list of people Michael told Tom he couldn't completely trust ("Fredo? He's got a good heart, but he's weak and stupid, and this is life and death"). Although I doubt Michael at that point suspected Fredo of having an active role in the Tahoe shooting, it's clear he didn't trust Fredo with anything important.

Many of us have commented on the probing looks Michael gave Fredo at key moments in Havana, such as in his hotel room ("Anyone I know in Havana?" "Oh, Hyman Roth, Johnny Ola." "No, I don't know those guys."); and later at the Yolanda show ("Johnny, I don't think you know my brother Fredo." "We never met.") Since Ola and Roth were tight with Vito, and Ola told Michael at Anthony's party that he remembered Tom "from the old days," Fredo, too, would have been around them in the "old days"--and Michael should have picked up on that instantly. Some here believe Michael brought Fredo to Havana as a test, to see if he'd expose his possible treachery. If so--if Michael had any doubts whatsoever about Fredo--why would he tell him his plans, and give him the opportunity to tip off Roth?

Your thoughts?

I think Mike would have multiple plans for getting rid of Roth, as Roth did for Michael in all likelihood so if Fredo had blabbed Plan A, Michael would have gone with Plan B. I think he told Fredo about Roth just as a way to try to test Fredo, draw him out.

If Michael had been just a tad more patient at the banana daquiri scene, Fredo might have confessed everything then. I think he was on the verge of doing so.

Michael had, if nothing else, supreme self-confidence. To walk into the Lion's Den with just one bodyguard and an incompetent brother of mixed loyalties showed that. It also led Roth to believe that Michael was still a step behind, which is what Michael wanted him to believe.

I also think that despite everything Michael still didn't want to believe that Fredo was the fink.

I've said it before, I think he was already suspecting Fredo very early on, but he couldn't be 100% sure until Fredo would comfirm his suspisions.

But in order to reveal himself, Michael needed Fredo to absolutely trust him first. That's why he shared his plans with him when they are at the terrace in Havana. It was all part of his game. Michael's facial expressions pretty much reveal everything in these scenes.

I think it was more important for Michael to know who the traitor was, than to keep his plan to kill Roth a secret. He was already taking risks to be in Cuba in the first place.

TB, you certainly raise an intriguing. Not only why tell Fredo of his plan at all (a test? What if Fredo fails the test?), but why tell Fredo early enough in the day so that he would have plenty of time to inform Roth? If Roth's plan was to have Michael murdered by Batista on his way home that night, if Fredo informed Roth of Michael's plan, then Roth could have accelerated his timetable. Michael could be murdered at any time. This was Michael's "Send Luca Brasi in" moment. No, it doesn't make any sense. And by the way, how did Michael learn about Roth's plan?

Because that's what Michael would have done. Game recognizes game. Remember the scene in Saving Private Ryan where the US sniper knows where the other sniper would be?
That's what I would do

He was testing Fredo's loyalty.

And it didn't really matter whether Fredo failed or not because as we know, the bodyguard had already been dispatched to kill Ola & Roth while Michael and Fredo were attending the New Year's Eve party. What hampered this was Roth having to be taken to the hospital.

And I disagree that Fredo was on the verge of confessing to Michael, although he obviously felt incredible guilt. He knew that what he had done was unforgiveable and he would not dare admit that he had worked with Ola & Roth, thereby enabling the assasination attempt at the Tahoe home.

No,New Year's Eve was to be the following night since Senator Geary was flying in then. So, although plans were made, nothing had been set in motion yet. Thus, there was plenty of time for Fredo to inform Roth. It still makes no sense.

Good point...but what's the difference? Even if Michael is testing Fredo, he has orders in place, and probably several means of protection/retaliation just in case his brother does turn 'fink'.

If you think about it in terms of 'real life', the entire discussion between Michael & Fredo does NOT make sense. Again however, real life is not always interesting or entertaining. I think that intimate scene between the brothers was necessary to the film, as it is shortly after that we first discover (along with Michael) that Fredo IS the traitor. It is also the final conversation that they have prior to the fateful lakehouse scene, and it simply needed to be in there. Sure, a different discussion could've taken place that made 'more sense', but there is such a thing as providing an audience information in order to set up scenes to follow.

I always saw it as Michael putting plans into action telling Fredo. A pre-emptive strike by causing a chain reaction of sorts. By telling Fredo he could use Fredo's reaction to make his next move.
After telling Fredo his plan he could a) closely monitor Fredo's reaction to being on the 'loosing team' B) see if Roth plans a counter-attack, thus confirming Fredo's guilt or Innocence.

True. But if Fredo informs Roth then it becomes imperative that Roth at least accelerate his plan for Michael's demise. Afterall, Roth is assuming that Micahel is not aware of Roth's plan. Some are forgetting that Michael is in a foreign environment where he has few resources. He's at the mercy of the Roth/Batista alliance during a tumultuous period in Cuba's history where anarchy is onthe horizon. Why in the world would Michael take a chance that provides little or no strategic benefit?

I'm with Oli in this and in his previous post:

Let's say Michael did bring Fredo to Havana to test his loyalty. And, suppose the test was to tell Fredo that Roth planned to kill him, but he was going to strike first: "Hyman Roth will never see the New Year." If Fredo was the traitor, then he'd tell Roth--and Roth would, as Oli said, move up his plan to kill Michael first. So, the only way Michael would know that Fredo was the traitor would be in the instant before he died at Roth's hand.

I think everyone has posted thoughtful answers. Thanks! But I still can't find a logical explanation for why Michael told Fredo his plan to kill Roth.

Agreed, because technically,there is none...but why must we endlessly look for 'logical explanations' of conversations or scenes in the GF or ANY of our favorite films, for the sole purpose of generating internet discussion.

Why would someone view any movie over and over, year after year, just to pick out bits of action or dialogue that may not make 100% sense on their own but do enhance the film as a whole.

It's nice to sometimes just enjoy a classic (or even a non-classic) for what it is and not overanalyze every word that comes out of every character's mouth.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ... but not when it comes to the Godfather Trilogy.

You hit the nail on the head, lol.

Hello everyone

Hello and welcome!

Another anomaly re. Fredo and Havana:

When Fredo asks Michael if there's anyone in Havana that he knows, Michael gives him the piercing look and says, "Oh, Hyman Roth, Johnny Ola..." Fredo replies: "No, I don't know those guys." Later, at the Yolanda show, when Ola shows up at their table, Michael, with another piercing look, says, "Johnny, I don't belive you know my brother Fredo." He says, "We never met."

At Anthony's party, when Michael introduces Ola to Tom, Ola says, "I remember Tom from the old days." Fredo was only a few years younger than Tom. If Tom and Ola knew each other from "the old days," so would Fredo. And, given the close association between Vito and Roth, Fredo would have known Roth, too. So, Michael should have known right away that Fredo was lying about not knowing Ola and Roth. Right then and there he should have figured out that Fredo was the traitor. But if he had, we'd have been spared the Superman show revelation and all the drama that followed...

As far as the movies are concerned, is there any reason to think this, beyond the fact that Fredo attended the meeting with Sollozzo and so could be expected to attend other major meetings? (Fredo in the book, of course, was much more closely connected to the family business).

With that as background, I would guess that Fredo was included in the Sollozzo meeting because it was ostensibly a new matter that could bind the family and require a degree of formality. If Sollozzo's offer was accepted, Fredo may not have been included in any discussions involving operations. Similarly, Fredo may not have been privy to operations involving Roth, because those had been handled for years by Ola and Genco, and then passed on to Tom.

Pete, I'm not saying Fredo would have been included in any business meetings between Vito and/or Roth. I'm saying that he might have seen them around Vito. In a deleted scene from II, we see Clemenza introducing the young Roth to Vito, who hired him as a truck mechanic. Surely all the Corleone children would have had opportunities to see/meet him. That's why, when Fredo said, "I don't know those guys" [emphasis added], Michael should have smelled a rat.

I don't know if it's entirely implausible that Ola and Fredo did not know one another. As Pete says, Fredo was hardly central to the Family business.

And their remarks about one another - Ola's "we never met" and the Fredo comment cited above - seem consistent with people who travel in the same circles but never had direct interactions.

Of course, they were lying and Michael was right to be suspicious, but I don't think it was so blatantly untrue that Michael could or should have known without a doubt that Fredo was the traitor.

And Michael did in that particular scene, which is what the movie shows you.

This is possible, of course. For me, though, the reintroduction between Tom and Ola feels like a business thing. Michael introduces Tom as "my lawyer" rather than "my brother." I think when Ola references "the old days" to Tom, he's talking about when Tom worked for Vito in the family business. I don't think Fredo necessarily had the same exposure.

TB, I have to side with Pete on this. I've never found anything suspicious in Mike's expression when he mentions Ola and Roth to Fredo. I don't see it. Plus, how many people could Mike have known in Cuba the names of which he could have mentioned to Fredo?

As far as Vito's association with Roth goes, as the book states, in the early 30s Fredo was still in high school. We only know of Vito's association with Roth from the films, not the book. Even so, from the novel's limited reference to years, we can infer that the association with Roth takes place when Vito's kids were quite young and I also doubt that Roth was ever around Vito and his family for the kids to know and remember who Roth was in the same way as they were around Clemenza. They are two totally different associations. Again, as the novel states, even Sonny at 16 or so went to work for Vito, but only after Sonny requested doing so and then was used in a cursory manner throguh Clemenza.

I don't know. If Ola knew Tom from the "old days" this presumably would have been when Tom was counselor-in-training, right? Tom would have spent a lot of time around Vito just as Sonny would have. Maybe Fredo spent less time on the "inside" than his brothers did but I certainly think Fredo would have known the major players on Roth's side-at least to say hello to.

I'm guessing the old days would have been before Roth relocated HQ to Miami-say 1930-1940 or so.

My thought is that this relationship would run something like Vito to Genco/Tom to Ola to Roth. Vito never trusted Hyman Roth....

I think that some of you are envisioning Vito's construction of his crime family apparatus and its operation as an affair that took place under the noses of his family. Why think that Roth or Ola was ever in proximity to Sonny or Fredo as kids? Sonny was at least 16 before Vito admitted him to any exposure to the business and that was only because he claimed to have witnessed Vito's murder of Fanucci. Even then, as the novel states, his exposure was quite limited until the Maranzano War.

Ola knew Tom. Tom and Sonny were the same age. I don't think that as children or even as teens either Tom or Sonny knew Roth/Ola but I do think each of them would have run across Roth/Ola say in the years between 1934~1941 or so. Sonny would have been a bodyguard/driver for his father and Tom got to sit in on some meetings. I don't think it's too far out there that Ola would have remembered Tom and Fredo too-once he joined the olive oil business.

Well, unfortunately, Roth is not a novel based character, so we only have the films to go on. However, I just don't believe that Roth would have had any exposure to Vito's family. We see him about to work in Vito's crime family garage, but that's a far cry from his being exposed at all to Vito's kids. If Roth is a moniker for Lansky, then we can presume that it didn't take him long to step out on his own away from physical exposure to the Corleone kids. Also, given Michael's youth during the period in question, his being away at college later, and then his tour or duty, I don't see him knowing Roth either (until later) and surely not knowing if Fredo knew Roth. I just don't see it.

1) Vito instructed all his sons about the "olive oil business". He must have spent a lot of time with Sonny, Tom and Michael, discussing all that stuff. But it's not difficult to assume that at least he tried to transfer some of his knowledge to Fredo. This knowledge must have included a number of his contacts, especially contacts to old friends and partners.
2) Fredo had been in Las Vegas for more than ten years. He had known Moe Greene. It seems improbable that he didn't get to know Roth and Ola during that time.

Anyway, it seems to me, that again we split in to parties: One tries to find holes in the script. The other one tries to defend it against all improbabilities.

This indeed suggest he must have at least seen Roth and Ola as they were closely associated with Moe Greene.

But that doesn't mean that Michael would have also known this.

If one wants to find holes in the script, that isn't very difficult to do. You can come across several without even trying.

It's when some try to examine every word of every scene with a fine-toothed comb, and/or find justification for EVERY hole, no matter how unexplainable...that we are venturing a bit far out into the stratosphere.

Kind of like Birthers.

Kind've, yes!

Both groups insist upon walking down a road that leads to nowhere.

Michael told Fredo his plan because he probably had a tail on Fredo to see if Fredo would go to Roth with it. It would also serve to scare th hell out of Fredo, and maybe Michael wanted to see Fredo's reaction. In any case, it is clear that after the Michael-Fredo scene, things between Michael and Roth had soured to the point that Michael and Roth were sending each other signals that they were not allies at all. It wa after th encounter with Fredo that michael demanded to know from Roth who gave the order to kill Pentangeli, and Roth's ominous statement that he was going to take a nap, and when he woke up if the monet was on the table he had a partner, but if it was not on the table, he did not.

As for the bit about Tom knowhing Ola from the "old days," I always thought it implausible that Fredo didn't know Ola from all the time he spent in Vagas with Moe Green, who was Roth's protoge.

Well DT, that's a good point. But I wonder why Michael asked if he already knew the answer just as you knew it. By asking, he would have alerted Fredo to his knowledge of his association with Roth. Why do that? At this point, what benefit does Michael derive from asking the question or from revealing his plans for Roth's demise?

It was one of the most brilliant scenes in the Trilogy. Each knew what the other was up to, but both were hanging tough for their objectives: Michael to find the traitor, Roth to get the $2 million. Plus Roth's soliloquey...

So maybe Michael was using Fredo to send a message to Roth?

TB and DT, I don't understand why Michael would risk his life by revealing any of his plans in an environment run by a dictator, where he had few resources to call on, but where his enemy had an ally who commanded the resources of a government.

Agreed.

I don't see any logical way that Michael telling Fredo can be reconciled with Michael suspecting Fredo.

That is because there is none...other than for audience benefit as to learning of Michael's plans for Roth, and to include a final 'intimate' scene between the brothers before Fredo's betrayal is confirmed.

For me, I believe that Mike didn't beleive Fredo was the traitor until Superman, his utter abhorrence when he hears Fredo say take Ola took him to see the show is far to agonised for someone who suspected all along.

I think he tells Fredo because he's his brother, that telling him can't do any harm and it allows him to share what he knows with someone he thought loved him. You can see at the start 'I can't control her Mikey' 'You're my brother Fredo, you don't have to apologise to me' that there is a bond between the two, at least on Michael's part.

If he suspected Fredo, he'd have told Tom he suspected Fredo when they talk after the shooting, only Rocco and Neri's name were mentioned, not Fredo's. Tom being the only man Michael can absolutely trust would be informed would he not?

He couldn't rule it out of course, but I think Fredo was last on his list of suspects.

That is just about the only credible explanation, although it's a long stretch. Michael was hardly the sentimental type, and, since Michael told Tom that Fredo was "weak and stupid, and this is life and death," the same logic would have led Michael not to trust Fredo with his Roth plan, if for no other reason than Fredo could have stupidly blurted it out (as he stupidly blurted out that he and Ola had been to the Superman show).



Again, by telling Tom that Fredo was "weak and stupid," he was telling Tom that Fredo couldn't be trusted. At that point I think he meant trusted to run the family in his absence. So, I agree with you: at that point Michael didn't think Fredo had an active role in the shooting. But I think Michael wasn't ruling out Fredo having done something inadvertently through his own carelessness and stupidity.

So if he suspected Fredo just a little bit, why didnt he latch upon what Fredo said at the cafe

Fredo - I was mad at you....
Mike - What? What do you mean?
Fredo - Oh nothing
Mike - Come on Fredo, what
Fredo - Well...when I said I didnt know Ola, I wasnt being honest, because I'm scared of what will happen when you find out
Mike - Found out what
Fredo - I told Ola things about you I shouldn't have, I'm so sorry Mikey, its my fault you got hit, but I SWEAR I didnt know it was going to be a hit.

I dunno, something like that. Mike was so gone though, he would have killed Freddie even if he confessed in the fashion seen above

Michael doesn't suspect Fredo. As someone above pointed out, when he does hear Fredo reference Roth and Ola, he is visibly devastated and only then gives his bodyguard the okay to proceed with Roth's assassination. Thus, Fredo broke his heart.

When Michael refers to Fredo as weak and stupid, he is really expressing a certain contempt not so much for those characteristics of Fredo's in particular, but for those characteristics generally as manifested by anybody. Remember, in the phrase before that he says of Fredo that he has a good heart. That is also why in the boathouse scene Michael becomes enraged because Fredo is manifesting his weak and stupid characteristics.

I always felt it was harsh of Michael to refer to Fredo as stupid to Tom who grew up with Fredo the same as he did, its not like he needs to be told about Fredo. Weak maybe, but Stupid, harsh. Fredo wasn't stupid in my view, just weak.

Harsh, yes. But, as Michael said, it was "life and death." I think he felt he owned Tom an explanation of why he wasn't entrusting the family to Fredo. I have a feeling that Tom was closest to Fredo following Sonny's death--he sure wasn't close to Michael.

Yeah, he tries his best to look after him, but Mike is out control by the end, he could have found himself killed quite easily.