"micheal corleone says hello"

1.)if the line "micheal corleone says hello" was an ad lib that we assume ffc decided to keep b/c it helped the story, then what else would have made frankie testify against mike?

2.)if the line was intended to mis-direct the bartender who might have to talk to the cops, and NOT a ploy by roth to mis lead frankie into ratting out mike, then how did "roth play this one beautifully?"

3.)so....roth maybe so maybe no wants to whack frankie? if mike already told roth 'pentangeli is a dead man' why would roth bother to do the job for him?

i say roth must have intended to scare frankie into testifying, but the more i think about this the less i like part 2.

This topic has been done to death. Use search to read previous comments.

olivant...while you are correct in stating this topic has been covered before, why don't you be nice & give others a chance to respond before just dismissing someone with the 'search other threads' line.

Personally, I think the 'Michael Corleone says hello...' line is an outright flaw in the film and always will be.

If Roth intended Frankie's death, then the line would've been simply for him to die believing that his Don had set him up. Except I really don't think a man like Roth would bother himself with such trivialities.

If Roth intended for the hit to fail as it did, then it would in turn make sense that Frankie turn rat on Michael while Roth sit back and watch the whole thing.

But the way the policeman just happened to walk in and completely mess up the whole thing ... and he appeared to be legitimate by the way the bartender reacted to him ... it just doesn't seem that that part was orchestrated. Therefore, Roth would've wanted Frankie to die, but when it fell apart Roth was still able to use that to his advantage. For a while, anyway.

Yet...that still leaves the question of why the line? There's really NO explanation for the line, except as a teaser to the audience to ponder whether Michael would REALLY set Frankie up in such a way...only to discover later that he did not.

Therefore, the line is a FLAW, because no matter how you slice it there is just no logical reason for the Danny Aiello character to have said it.

Apple

It's hard to disagree with Apple's contention that "Michael Corleone says hello" was a flaw in the script. After all, there's just no way that even Roth was clever enough to have bet his life on a split-second-timed plot to turn Frankie against Michael. Why would he even try? Roth lured Michael to Havana because, as the most powerful gringo in Cuba, Roth was confident that he could use his government connections to have Michael assassinated. Why, therefore, would Roth risk everything to set Michael up for a Senate hearing, months in the future, when in fact Michael would be long dead by the time the hearings convened?

The simplest explanation for "Michael Corleone says hello" is one that has been uncovered by Godfather scholars in an interview with Danny Aiello, who played Tony Rosato. Aiello admits he ad-libbed the famous line, and Francis Coppola, for some reason (probably inadvertence--the flaw Apple noted), permitted the ad-lib to remain in the film, to the eternal bafflement of Godfather fans. But it’s also possible that Coppola, the most careful of directors, allowed it to remain because it fit the plot, even though the Rosatos intended to kill Frankie all along:

“Michael Corleone says hello” was intended not for Frankie—but for Richie, the bartender, whose ginmill was being used to set up Frankie.

It’s obvious that Richie is a “civilian,” not a Made Man, and he’s nervous as hell about his bar being used for a murder (“Carmine, NO, not HERE!” he screams at Tony’s brother (played by Carmine Caridi) after the cop enters and Carmine draws his gun). The Rosatos know that Richie might be squeezed by the cops investigating Frankie’s murder. Richie would be too fearful of the Rosatos to identify them as the killers. Still, as a civilian, Richie is not bound by the code of omerta. So they hand Richie something he can give the cops so that Richie can get off the hook: “The murderers said, ‘Michael Corleone says hello.’ ” That line would set the police after Michael, and would be picked up by the press-- another nail in the coffin of Michael Corleone’s “legitimacy.” Clever Roth!

As for "Roth played this one beautifully":

Roth screwed up several times: the Tahoe shooting that failed to kill Michael; the Rosatos' failed attempt to kill Frankie; Michael figuring out Roth's intention (and therefore escaping Cuba alive while Roth had a stroke). But Roth was nothing if not resilient: the guy had nine lives. Faced with seeming disaster--all his failures, Michael's survival, etc.--Roth recouped in drawing on his ally, Questadt, to put Michael in the perjury trap by arranging for Frankie's survival to be kept secret. Brilliant! Too bad for Roth that Michael was even more resilient by reaching for Frankie's brother. [/qb][/QUOTE]

Apple: Because! Basta!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Turnbull:
[qb]

"Michael Corleone says hello" was intended not for Frankie-but for Richie, the bartender, whose ginmill was being used to set up Frankie.


1.)I guess this is where I became very fascinated with this subject. I can't imagine why Aiello would wanna change the script in such an IMPORTANT scene and say...(nah, I think the rosato's need to throw Micheal Corleone's name out here to lead the bartender off the trail) Maybe that is a common practice in film production though.....(letting the actors add their input and editing it out if need be at a later time.)

2.)Mike already said he would whack frankie, Roth does not believe him?

When Michael said, "Frank Pentangeli is a dead man--you don't object?" he was attempting to mislead Roth into thinking that he blamed Frankie, not Roth, for the Tahoe shooting, and to appear humble (i.e., asking Roth's permission). But, instead of whacking Frankie, Michael dispatched him to settle his problems with the Rosatos. Oh-oh! Now Roth figured that Michael really didn't blame Frankie for the Tahoe attack--meaning that Michael might blame Roth. So Roth ordered the Rosatos to whack Frankie--Michael's main caporegime in New York--thus preventing Michael and Frankie from taking action against Roth, and to set the stage for Roth's allies, the Rosatos, to head up the Corleone family business in New York. When Michael confronted Roth about Frankie in Havana ("Who had Frank Pentangeli killed?"), Roth cleverly diverted Michael's self-righteousness by implying that it was tit-for-tat for Michael's elimination of Moe Green. Keep in mind, Ice, that at that point, both Roth and Michael thought Frankie had been killed, and Roth was confident that he could arrange Michael's assasination in Havana right after the New Year.

Regardless of what Danny Aiello says, I cannot believe that the "Michael Corleone says hello" line is an ad-lib.
This was one of Danny Aiello's first roles, and he's working for a celebrated director on the sequel to a Best Picture winner. The thought that he'd ad-lib a line during a pivotal scene - in such a way that we're still discussing it 30+ years later - strains credulity.

On the other hand, there's no other explanation for the line. Even if you accept that the police officer's entrance was planned to set up the perjury trap -which I don't - why include that line. After all, Michael ordered Frankie to meet with the Rosato brothers. That fact alone could lead Frankie to believe that Michael betrayed him.

As for the bartender, the Rosatos planned a hit to occur right in front of him. They obviously felt he would keep his mouth shut, with or without feeding him a gratuitous line (which would hardly diminish their legal culpability).

As Apple says, it's a flaw.

It could have simply been the screenwriters way of injecting some more human avarice into the film. You're about to kill a guy, so why not cause him further torment during his last few moments of life by causing him to think that his padrone had turned on him. Like Woltz, I don't think it was an ab-lib. But if it were and it did not fit the scene, FFC could always have reshot it.

Because again...I don't see how a man like Hyman Roth would concern himself with such things. Frankie was 'small potatoes', who cares what his dying thoughts would be. And the hitman wouldn't know to say it unless specifically instructed to do so. Ultimately, it is inescapeable that line makes no sense.

And the reason FCC didn't 'reshoot' is that at the time, it probably seemed like a good idea. And on the surface, it WAS a good idea except for the unanticipated nitpicking & questions that would follow some 20-30 years afterward by GF geeks everywhere!

Apple

Then again since FFC knew how the story was going to turn out, he knew that Pentangeli would survive the hit, get arrested and then spill his guts to the FBI because he thought Michael had tried to kill him. So maybe it was a plot device.

Of course it was a 'plot device'!!! It was strictly for the audience's benefit...similar to Neri suddenly appearing to Tom in the doorway after murdering Geary's prostitute.

But since realistically, the line would not have been spoken whether Roth wanted Frankie dead or not...it remains a flaw, no matter HOW you slice it.

Apple

Still another possibility is that "Michael Corleone says hello" was part of an earlier script following a different plot. GF and II went through many script iterations that were written and abandoned, though parts of some were actually filmed.

Some members here from time to time have posted parts of earlier scripts that have markedly different outcomes in key scenes. One such earlier script has Roth and the Rosatos arranging Frankie's survival, which would make Aiello's line fit. FFC abandoned that idea because, I'll bet, he saw that Roth would not credibly have risked everything on a hair-raising, incredibly difficult, dangerous, split-second-timed scheme to save Frankie so he could testify against Michael months down the road, when in fact Michael would be long dead--in Havana, at Roth's hand. Perhaps FFC had already filmed the bar scene with Aiello's line and simply decided to save the scene and not sweat the line that no longer fit.

Saying the line to torment Frankie in his last moments would not have been a product of Roth's sick mind; the Rosato Brothers, one of whom garroted Frankie, were sufficiently sick enough to spontaneously torment Frankie. So, to me, part of the script or an ab-lib, the line is a perfect illustration of the Rosato's avarice.

Nice try.

Like their buddy Roth...the Rosato Bros. had bigger goals than tormenting Frankie with false information during what would've been the final 15 seconds of his life. One need only pay attention to Frankie's initial complaints to Mike at Tahoe to understand that.

Anyway...he'd already been slipped the 'C'-note, the insult of which was torment enough.

Apple, you're right. I looked it up in Wiseguys For Dummies and it says: 1) only one insult per victim per group of victimizers and 2) hoods can only have bigger goals.

Whatsamatter, olivant...can't handle anyone disputing your 'theories'? I'm not surprised to find out you would own such a book.

Regarding the infamous line...I've heard it discussed for more years than I've been on the BB and by bigger GF officianados than myself. The general concensus is that it is a FLAW, because no matter what its logic cannot be explained...and I happen to agree with that.

So, think up whatever Rosato Bros. 'trait', whatever 'subplot' you like...the line is a flaw, has always been a flaw, and always will be a flaw.

Luckily, while an obvious one, it is far to minute a flaw to have a lasting negative effect on an otherwise flawless movie (except for the question of who opened the curtains, who killed the hitmen and exactly how did Fredo help Roth).

Apple

i like to 'enlighten' my friends who have never seen the movies and whenever we get to it this is one of those 'minute flaws' that greatly confuses. i know it still confuses me.

There was a scene written. It takes place right before Michael surprises Pentangeli in New York. It plants the seed of doubt in Pentangeli's mind but is made unnecessary by "Michael Corleone says hello!"


INT. THE RESTAURANT - DAY

The restaurant is quite empty, despite the excitement out on
the street.

Pentangeli immediately sits at a table with a tall, dark,
snappily dressed young man, CARMINE ROSATO.

Nearby, on the other side of the room is Rosato's brother,
TONY, seated with a group of their men.

At another table in the restaurant is a table of Pentangeli's
people: they are joined by bodyguards.

PENTANGELI
Rosato, where's your brother?

ROSATO
Sitting right behind you.

Pentangeli glances behind himself.

PENTANGELI
He don't want to talk?

ROSATO
We worked it all out beforehand.

PENTANGELI
Are we going to eat or what?

ROSATO
Sure, on me. I got Diner's Club.

PENTANGELI
(sarcastically)
Forget it; I'm suddenly without an
appetite. You're making big
trouble, Carmine.

ROSATO
You weren't straight with us,
Frankie, what else could we do?

PENTANGELI
We could have talked first, saved a
lot of running around.

ROSATO
You wasn't listening, you didn't
want to talk.

PENTANGELI
Don't I look like I'm listening?

ROSATO
We want Brooklyn one hundred
percent. No more taxes to you. We
want to be only loosely connected
with your family -- sort of a
under-family all of our own. Then
we can act on all internal matters
without talking. Also we want you
to inform Michael Corleone that we
can deal directly with him.

PENTANGELI
I'm a little hungry, maybe I'll
order something. Joe.
(one of his men)
Get me some bracciole or something.
And pay cash.
(to Rosato)
And in return for these concessions,
what do you do for me?

ROSATO
We will release the hostages,
number one. Number two, we're here
for you to count on when you need
us. We're independent, but we're
here if you need us. In general,
we'll cooperate with you and your
businesses, and you in turn will
cooperate with us. Pari persu.

PENTANGELI
Pari Persu; what the fuck is Pari
persu...?

ROSATO
My lawyer went over this beforehand.

PENTANGELI
What assurances do I have that
there will be no more kidnapping,
no more hits?

ROSATO
The same assurance we got from you.

PENTANGELI
What if I say shove it?

ROSATO
Then Carmine Fucillo and Tony Blue
DeRosa will need to be fitted for
slabs.

PENTANGELI
You want a war?

ROSATO
We got no choice.

PENTANGELI
You know if there's a way I'll go
to the commission and the commission
will side with me. That puts me
and the other New York families
against you.

ROSATO
We got friends in the commission.

PENTANGELI
(getting angry)
I'm talking about Italians!

ROSATO
What about Michael Corleone?

PENTANGELI
He supports me.

ROSATO
Maybe, yes... maybe no.

One of Pentangeli's men approaches with a plate of Italian
food.

Pentangeli stands up, angered by this remark of Rosato's; he
pushes the dish of food out of the surprised Bodyguard's
hands.

PENTANGELI
You drove old Pete Clemenza to his
grave, Carmine; you and your
brother. Turning on him; trouble
in his territories -- you and your
demands. I hold you responsible,
just as though you shot him in the
head. And I ain't gonna let that
go for long!

Pentangeli walks out of the restaurant; there's a little
tension between the bodyguards of the two factions.

ROSATO (O.S.)
Hey, Five-Angels...

He gives him the arm.

Frankie's face turns red, like he wants to have it out here
and now; but Willy Cicci calms his down, and they all make
their move out.

EXT. THE RESTAURANT - DAY

Pentangeli gets into the car.

PENTANGELI
Nobody I hate calls me Five-Angels
to my face!

He slams the door.

Interesting.
As posted earlier: the films of the Trilogy went through many iterations. It'd be interesting to compare them in a timeline to see how they evolved to the final cut. But the final cut is what counts.
In this case, I'm glad they didn't film the scene above because it would have lengthened the movie without adding to the drama, or improving the Frankie/Roth/Michael/Senate plot.
However, it does deepen the connection between the Rosato brothers and the real-life Gallo brothers (not that it was ever in doubt).

For what it's worth, Tom says the following in the Second Draft of the GFII screenplay:

"Roth engineered it, Michael. He made Pentangeli think you hit him. Deliberately letting him get off alive. Then the New York detectives turned Frankie over to the FBI. My informants say he was half dead and scared stiff -- talking out loud that you had turned on him and tried to kill him. Anyway, they had him on possession, dealing in heroin, murder one and a lot more. There's no way we can get to him and you've opened yourself to five points of perjury."

wow, 90cal., that would leave one to conclude that it was, indeed, intended, and not an ad-lib (although, cut from the final movie, thus still making it a mistake)

With all due respect, the ad-lib theory is easily the most implausible conjecture I've encountered on these boards. As one poster put it, a director simply will not let a fresh actor just start making up lines of that kind, i.e. lines which bear so directly on the logic of the plot (as distinguished from lines of little or no consequence to the plot). And if he does let it happen, it will be because he thinks it over and approves of it.

I also do not see why it is a flaw in the plot to have Roth engineer the Pentangeli hit in the manner described in my previous post. Turnbull argues that it is implausible because Roth was already arranging to have Michael assassinated in Cuba. But Roth already failed at killing Michael once, so common prudence would tell him that his next attempt could also go awry, no matter how airtight his planning. In other words, if by some mishap Michael eludes Roth's next attempt, he'll get nailed by the US Senate. It's insurance.

Pentangeli, as we saw, hated Roth. If he had testified, he would have every incentive to implicate and destroy Roth, since he knew plenty about Roth's dealings with Michael (what he was pissed off about at the Tahoe party). So, if Roth engineered Pentangeli's survival, he was guaranteeing exposure of his criminal activities to a televised audience for a Senate hearing.

In other words, you disagree with Hagan's remark that "Roth played this one beautifully." I believe your argument is mistaken, however.

Firstly, anything Pentangeli says about Roth at any Senate hearing is strictly non-credible and thus de facto inadmissible as a legal basis for prosecuting Roth. They are known enemies, and they did not deal directly with one another. This is why the Senate needed witnesses from within the Corelone family to prosecute Michael.

The Senate had a paid Corelone hitman saying Michael was a crime boss -- Cicci. But because there were "buffiz" between him and Mike, his testimony could not get the latter into any legal trouble. The purpose of Cicci testifying was to roll out the red carpet for Frankie, not to give incriminating evidence, because what he says does not count as legal evidence. This is why when Pentangeli appears before the Committee, the Chairman says, "we finally have a witness who had no buffer between him and Michael Corleone."

My point is that Frankie never dealt with Roth directly, and even if he did, because he was his enemy, his testimony would be viewed as non-credible.

Would Roth be worried about bad publicity? Hardly. He has been in the underworld for 50 years. Everyone knows he's a mobster, so from his point of view, let people say what they wish, as long as they don't have evidence to put me behind bars.

In short, I agree with Hagan's remark, quoted above, and with Ice, who asks the key question in his original post, #2.

I do agree with Hagen's statement because he meant that Roth had used his man, Questadt, to trap Michael into five counts of perjury--not that he had engineered Frankie's survival. Roth wanted Frankie dead, but when he survived, he brilliantly went to Plan B--use Questadt to lay the perjury trap for Michael.

Another reason why Hagen said that Roth played it brilliantly was to try to take the heat off how stupidly he played it by not knowing that Frankie had survived--and thus counseled his one and only client to perjure himself.


The Senate is not a court of law or a prosecutor's office. They could not prosecute Michael for any of the crimes that the Senators or Questadt enumerated, nor did they intend to. Their intent in trapping Michael was to a) rip away his "legitimate" front and expose him for the Mafia boss he was; and b) to get him to commit perjury, so they would then turn his perjured testimony over to a US Attorney for prosecution on perjury charges. And, once he was exposed as a perjurer, prosecutors in other jurisdictions (i.e., New York) could have pursued prosecutions against Michael for the earlier crimes.
The same would apply to Roth. Had Frankie testified against Roth, his testimony alone would not have resulted in Roth being prosecuted for crimes because the Senate isn't a court of law or a prosecutor. But it very well could have resulted in Roth being hauled before the committee to answer questions that, at minimum, would have exposed his criminal activities.


The purpose of having Cicci testify--and the purpose of Geary's question about buffers--was to lull Michael into thinking that Cicci was the highest-ranking witness the Committee had against him. And since Cicci said he never got a direct order, it further lulled Michael into thinking that he could get away with perjuring himself. If that's what you meant by "rolling out the red carpet for Pentangeli," then I agree with you.


Roth was posing as a "legitimate" businessman by running gambling in Havana as a "consultant" to Batista. His interests in Nevada gambling were hidden (as in Johnny Ola telling Michael that "the real owners of the Tropigala are the Lakeville Road Boys and our friend in Florida"). After Batista's downfall, Roth lost his interests in Havana. He would have desperately needed to maintain the "legitimate" front to gain footholds in other legalized gambling venues. I say this because the real-life Meyer Lansky, on whom Roth was modeled so closely, got into gambling in the Bahamas, which filled the gaming vacuum created when Castro closed the casinos. Any exposure of Roth's criminal activities before a Senate hearing televised to millions would have poisoned Roth with any government that might have considered hiring him as a gaming "consultant" or granting him or his associates gaming licenses.

Let's realize that Congressional hearings involving potential criminal violations are preceded by extensive criminal investigation. As someone has alluded to above, the hearings themseslves are not criminal proceedings. If Pentangeli's words at the hearing indict anyone, it does not come as a surprise to the Senators (e.g., "we have a sworn affadavit").

More and more I think that they didn't intend to kill Frankie.

The purpose of Willie Cicci's testimony was intended to corroborate Pentangeli's future testimony. Cicci's testimony, alone, would not have been enough to bring charges against Michael.

As you said, Cicci's testimony was supposed to roll out the red carpet for Pentangeli's testimony, because when Cicci was testifying, the committee, at that point, was under the impression that Pentangeli was going to tell all, and build a solid case by corroborating what Cicci may have told that committee, even though he could not directly implicate Michael with his own testimony. Cicci's testimony was to be the foundation of the charges, and Pentangeli's testimony would cement that foundation.




Keep in mind that we, as viewers, are watching the scene as a whole, and within the context of the whole movie. However, when a movie is being shot, it is not neccessarily shot in exact order. Almost evry scene is shot out of sequence. And most times, a small part actor is not given a complete script to read. For all we know Aiello may not have even had any lines. And therefore Aiello may not have even known what the WHOLE idea was or the WHOLE plot was behind that whole movie. Yes, the director will give an idea to the actors of what they are about to shoot right before the actual shooting of that scene. FFC probably gave Aiello and the other small bit actors an idea of what he was trying to convey in that scene, and Aiello may have decided to Ad-lib that line based on what HE thought the scene was going convey in context of the whole movie. And FFC may have watched the film right after that shoot, and realized that it would add a twist to the plot that he was trying to lay out for the movie. Let's remember that there was no GFII book for any of the actors or actresses to read.



Don Cardi

Good point about the non-sequential shooting of most scenes in a film. But, the Aiello line could have been simpply an editing mistake. Indeed, if the oh so obvious face at the funeral could make it pass the editors, surely Aiello's line could have.

DC I agree that Cicci was testifying to help them set Michael up for perjury charges. Cicci testifies that he was a button man, and that he killed people.

What he could not say was that Michael corleone ordered him to kill people. He could have testified that Pentangeli ordered him to do that, but Pentangeli had been given immunity. So where they leave Cicci is with the leading question Did the family have buffers? To which Willie gave his famous answer.

Turnbull,

There is something in your argument that I'm confused by. On the one hand, you argue that Roth did not want Pentangeli testifying to the Senate committee, because he was worried that Pentangeli would expose his, Roth's, criminal activities. You write: "Any exposure of Roth's criminal activities before a Senate hearing televised to millions would have poisoned Roth with any government that might have considered hiring him as a gaming "consultant" or granting him or his associates gaming licenses."

But then you argue that after the hit on Pentangeli fails -- which, you claim, is not what Roth wanted -- Roth then puts his "brilliant Plan B" in motion. And this is where I'm confused: you describe this as a brilliant plan, but it involves a high risk of Pentangeli exposing Roth before the Senate committee. You write: "Roth wanted Frankie dead, but when he survived, he brilliantly went to Plan B--use Questadt to lay the perjury trap for Michael." In other words, my problem is that laying the perjury trap for Michael means getting Pentangeli behind the microphone on Capitol hill; but how is this a "brilliant" plan B if it has a high risk of exposing Roth's criminal activities to an audience of millions?

Let me state my concern this way: your argument against my view that the Pentangeli hit was deliberately botched in order to get him to testify against Michael is this: the last thing in the world Roth wants is Pentangeli on the witness stand, since he would expose Roth's criminality. But then you describe Roth's laying the perjury trap--which means getting Pentangeli on the witness stand--as Roth's "brilliant plan B."

Forgive my repetativeness here, but I wish to make my objection as clear as possible.

and it was changed to

ROTH. He engineered it MICHAEL. Frankie went to make a deal with the Rosato Brothers -- and they TRIED TO KILL HIM.

Look, Roth could have ordered the hit and told the Rosato's it came from Michael (along with the fact that Frankie wanted Michael's blessing to recruit people to kill them). Roth could have told the Rosato's that it was Frankie who tried to kill Michael in Tahoe and Michael will give them the territories if they kill Pentangeli for him. The Rosato's wouldn't necessarily know everything that Roth knows, and I sincerely doubt that Roth would tell them he was going to kill Michael.

I don't think it was necessarily shot this way, but I also don't think the "Michael Corleone says hello!" coupled with the cops accidental entry is hopelessly flawed.

90caliber: I acknowledge where you see an apparent contradiction. I should have been clearer:
One of the reasons that Roth would not deliberately engineer Frankie's survival was that Frankie's testimony could involve him and expose his criminal activities. But after that fateful New Year's Eve, Roth was in desperate shape: he'd suffered a stroke, lost his Cuban gaming empire, and learned the hard way that Michael knew all along that he was behind the Tahoe shooting, and had found out Fredo's treachery. But Roth, crafty fellow, also saw that Frankie's survival provided him with an opportunity to trap Michael through his puppet, Questadt. Yes, if Frankie had testified against Michael, he might well have harmed Roth. But at that point, Roth had nothing left to use against Michael.
You might ask: Why would he still want to go after Michael when he'd lost everything, and using Frankie could expose him? As we saw constantly in the Trilogy: the desire for revenge is most often emotional, not rational. But Roth also may have believed that if Michael went to prison on perjury charges, he'd have a chance, down the road, to pick up some of the pieces of the Corleone empire. The guy was nothing if not resilient.

I’d like to go through the reasons why Roth didn’t engineer Frankie’s survival one more time:

First, it would have been nearly impossible for Roth to arrange the cop’s entry to save Frankie when literally a few seconds separated him from life and death. The cop was not part of the plan. He was surprised that Richie’s bar was open, and immediately suspicious and wary of Frankie’s legs sticking out of the doorway to the rear of the bar. The Rosatos weren’t expecting the cop. They panicked when he started toward Frankie’s body. Carmine Rosato almost blew his head off (until Richie cried, “Carmine, NO-O-O-O…”). They dashed out of the bar, knocking the cop over, and ran into a gunfight. The cop was wounded in the gunfight—you see his partner propping him up near their patrol car. No way was that cop part of the plan.
If he wasn’t, could he have been an unwitting patsy for Roth? If so, how? Did some higher-up in the police department who was on Roth’s payroll call the cop and tell him, “OK, Shultz, show up at Richie’s bar at exactly 3:42 and thirty six seconds on Tuesday afternoon—ya got that? Three forty two and thirty six seconds. Now let’s synchronize watches…” Did Roth or someone in his employ call the precinct and tell them, “Something fishy’s going on in Richie’s bar; I think you should send someone, but not until three forty two and thirty six seconds”; or hope that the cop would arrive at the exact moment to save Frankie? I don’t think so.

Second, Frankie had lured Michael to Havana for two purposes: to get the $2 million, and to have him whacked by his government pals. Why would he risk everything on an impossible, split-second-timed plan to save Frankie so that he could testify against Michael months down the road—when, according to Roth’s plan, Michael would already be long dead?
90caliber offers an interesting idea: Frankie’s survival was a backup for Roth in case the Havana assassination failed. Since the Tahoe assassination failed, Roth might have wanted a backup for Havana. But I don’t think so:
The Tahoe plan was far riskier than Havana. Roth needed to sneak two gunmen out of New York, and their machineguns, into Michael’s heavily guarded compound, then arrange for them to be killed. Very risky. But Roth already had a contingency: Frank Pentangeli. He knew that Frankie would be at the party, contentious over Michael’s support of Roth and the Rosatos. Therefore, Frankie would make the perfect fall guy. So, if the hit succeeded, Michael’s successors would come after Frankie. And, even if it failed, Frankie would still be regarded as the guilty party—and Michael would come after him. That’s exactly what Michael led him to believe when he visited Roth in Miami.
By contrast, the Havana assassination plan was a slam-dunk for Roth. He was the most powerful gringo in Havana, thanks to his long-term friendship and partnership with the Cuban President. He could have his pal Batista squash Michael like a bug. What was Michael’s bodyguard (formidable though he seemed) compared with all the military that Roth could bring to bear? We saw what happened when that elite-looking military group double-timed down the hospital corridor and riddled the bodyguard with bullets without breaking stride. Roth didn’t think he needed a backup because, as far as he was concerned, Michael was a dead man the moment he stepped off the plane in Havana. Too bad for Roth that he never counted on Michael figuring out that he was behind the Tahoe shooting; and Batista abdicating.

So, why did Tony Rosato say, “Michael Corleone says hello”? As others have pointed out, the script went through many iterations; and in an earlier iteration, the script called for Roth having engineered Frankie’s survival. Also, as others have noted, GFII, like all movies, was filmed in sequences that suited the production schedule, not that followed the actual running narrative. A simple explanation is that the “Michael Corleone says hello” scene was filmed while the Roth-engineering-Frankie’s-survival idea was part of the script. Later, FFC thought better of that idea (probably because it was too far-fetched) and dropped it, but retained the earlier filmed sequence—either because he liked the way it played, or because it was already in the can and some or all of the actors had been released, making it too hard (or costly) to reshoot, or because he was careless.
This happened elsewhere in GFII:
Last year, one of our sharp-eyed posters spotted Questadt in the businessmen’s meeting with Batista—sitting in a chair right behind Roth. There was absolutely no logical reason for Questadt to be in that scene—none whatsoever. What’s more, if Michael had noticed him there, he’d have known he “belonged to Roth”; and when Questadt turned up as the Senate lawyer, Michael would never, ever have perjured himself. So what happened? Sure enough, another poster turned up an earlier version of the script in which Tom and Michael refer to Questadt before the Havana meeting as someone who could help them with Geary and gaming matters in Nevada. Evidently the businessmen’s meeting scene was filmed while that script was still operative. Later, FFC reconsidered and dropped that idea, reserving Questadt solely as the Senate lawyer. But he retained the scene with Questadt sitting behind Roth—probably because he didn’t want to have to reshoot it, and figured that nobody’d notice Questadt in it. Of course, he hadn’t counted on the sharp-eyed people on these Boards!

I totally agree that Roth did NOT engineer Frankie's survival for the exact reasons that Turnbull has given above. And as someone who did some bit part extra work on several shows and in several movies, ( no wise cracks TB ) I can tell you that I myself have been cast as an extra in a scene, without knowing the plot. Then there were times that we were given a vague idea of the plot, right before the shoot, only to later on see that the plot was altered a bit but the original scene that was shot was kept as is because it was a good take and it was already in the can.

Why is it hard to believe that, in a plot where Roth wanted it to look like Michael set up Roth, Aiello would ad-lib the line? Even if Frankie had been killed, the "Michael Corleone says hello" line still works in several ways. It throws a curveball to the viewer, and it also serves the purpose in that even if Frankie had died, word would have gotten out, maybe by the bartender, that Micahel was the one who killed Frankie. In my opinion the line works one way or another, and I think that FFC felt the same way.


Don Cardi

Thanks for taking the time to lay out your argument with such clarity. Impressive stuff.

.

Wow - that really would be a masterful plan by Roth! I do believe, however, that things are rather simple.

Michael feigned his desire to have Pantangeli killed in front of Roth. Roth knew Pantangeli would be meeting with the Rosatos, and Roth tried to make sure the meeting wasn't a trick (remember the phone call to Fredo in the morning?). Roth believed Michael was actually sending Pantangeli to the slaughter. Roth then likely informed the Rosatos that hit was OK'd by Michael. The infamous "line" by Rosato, even if ad-libbed, represented the Rosatos actual perception of the chain of events, and judging by their sleazy nature, was probably a little extra insult to injury for their enemy Pantangeli. In any case, the line was not articulated as some design for some future, grandiose, and unforseeable scheme. Rather, the line was a logical articulation based on the current understanding of the parties at the time, and, regardless of how it came about (via 'ad-lib or design), it was accurate. The fact that it may have lowered Roth's burden of turning Frankie does not mean the line was a part of any pre-pondered design; Roth simply made the best of the circumstances as they unfolded against his enemy. He played them 'beautifully'.

Isn't that along the lines of what Alfred Hitchcock called a Maguffin?

That never occured to me. The Rosatos thought that Frankie's murder was okayed by Michael. Hmm. That works. It may be genius Roberto.

My question is this. If Aiello hadn't have said "Michael Corleone says hello", would Frankie think it was Michael who tried to have him killed?

It seems like FFC and Puzo left the line in there so that it would tie up the plot where Frankie testifies against Michael. I think they may not have thought ahead to see the problems it would create.

I like it, and it is one of the better explanations for the line, but later in the movie there is a scene between Michael and Hyman Roth when Michael asks in an accusing manner "Who ordered the hit on Frank Pentangeli? I know I didn't." Roth then goes into a rant about how he never asked any questions about who gave the order to kill Moe Green, because it was business, not personal. Why wouldn't Roth just say "I gave the Rosatos the go ahead after you came to my house and said "Frank Pentangeli is a dead man. What's wrong with you?" He didnt say this IMO because Both Roth and Michael knew by then that their "partnership" was a sham and that only one of them would come out of it alive.

Roth gave him that world-beating speech about Moe Green to divert Michael and make him think that Frankie's assassination was quid pro quo for Michael's whacking of Moe.

At that point, the Roth/Michael power struggle was in its last round, and time running out on both of them. Roth's plan was to whack Michael right after the New Year's celebration, and Michael knew it. Only hours remained for both of them: for Roth to get the $2 million, for Michael to find out who the traitor was, whack Roth, and get out of Cuba alive. Fredo delivered the money, but Michael hadn't handed it over. Why? Roth demands to know if "you're pulling out." If so, he's got to move up Michael's assassination. Michael's on the defensive: "I just wanna wait..." He knows this is a feeble response, and that his life could be on the line. So he shoots back, "Who had Frank Pentangeli killed? I know I didn't." IMO, it wasn't a real question--it was an attempt by him to put Roth on the defensive. Roth made an overpowering reply in that famous soliloquey--watch the look on Johnny Ola's face and you'll see that he thinks his boss showed up Michael for the wimp he was.

But the marvel--the genius--of that scene is that it shows us two powerful men digging in at the last minute for what they want: Michael for more time to find the traitor, Roth for his $2 million. It's also a terrific little throwback to a key scene in GF: When Roth tells Michael that Moe Green's murder "had nothing to do with business," do you believe him any more than when Michael told Sonny that his plan to whack Sollozzo and McCluskey was "business, not personal"? Crime titans that they are, Michael and Roth are still people with emotions.

As always, TB, great observation. The "it's business not personal" mantra is some kind of way these characters use to justify their murderous ways. In GF III Kay calls Michael out on this by telling him that his big thing is "reason" and then adds "backed up by murder." Still Sollozzo's attempt on Vito was definitely business, and Michael's hit on Green was also strictly business. As for Michael's sudden change of heart to get into the family business "I'm with you now, Pop" Sonny had it right...nice college kid gets slapped around and now he wants to gun down a New York Police Captain...it WAS personal for Mike, but then he does a brilliant job of convincing everyone in the room that Sonny's instinct is right ... no meetings no more Sollozzo tricks...by selling Tom on the non sequitur that this murder was strictly business because they had people on the payroll at newspapers who could print that McCloskey was a crooked cop who got mixed up with the rackets and got what was coming to him.

Don Tomasso
I think the line operates both as a plot device, to distract Roth, but I believe the content of the line is to introduce to the viewer the understanding that Michael actually was not behind the hit, since the "michael corleone says hello" line creates some doubt in the minds of most until this point. Roth's underhanded response IS an affirmative "It was me" response, only Roth justifies it with words he believes will still allow him to court Michael long enough to get the 2 million.

Seems to be. Fact is, anyone watching the movie for the first time would not remember that line well enough to know it is out of place anyway. I show the movie to TONS of ppl and they NEVER ask why that oddly placed line is there. I guess only freakos like us even realize it. Plus, FFC was not quite able to make the movie he wanted. In a Time Magazine interview from 1974 he said that if he had 3 more months he COULD have made a great movie.

That's why so many in here are inclined to spot the obvious flaws in the movie but take it for what it is. The Rosato's ad lib is a clear example of this shotty editing.

Some of those flaws are there because the Trilogy went through many script changes, and some of the scenes were filmed when scripts that were different from the final one were being followed.
As you know, people here often find those earlier scripts and post relevant pieces. One of those earlier scripts had Roth arranging Frankie's survival. FFC dropped that part of it from the final cut, probably because it was too far-fetched. But what if "Michael Corleone says hello" was filmed when the earlier script was being followed--and FFC left it in inadvertently? Or because Tony Rosato intended it as something Richie the bartender could tell the cops--"I dunno who done it, but they said, 'Michael Corleone says hello.' " That'd set the cops on Michael's trail, and further besmirch his "legitimate" reputation.
This isn't the only example of film snippets from earlier scripts that were left in the final cut, even when the earlier script was changed. Last year, one of our sharp-eyed colleagues spotted Questadt in Cuba--sitting right behind Roth at the businessmen's meeting with the President. There was absolutely no logical reason for Questadt to be in Cuba. And, if Michael had spotted him sitting right behind Roth (and he would have, since he was in the same room), Michael would know that he "belonged to Roth" and would never have perjured himself when Questadt turned up as the lawyer at the Senate hearing. Sure enough, another colleague here posted a section of an earlier script in which Michael and Tom talk about meeting Questadt way before Cuba. That script was changed, probably because FFC saw that there'd be vastly greater drama in the way it played out in the final cut. But he left the two seconds of Questadt in Cuba in the final cut, probably because he liked the way the scene played, didn't want to or couldn't reassemble the actors to re-shoot that scene, or simply didn't notice that Questadt was still in it. In any event, he certainly never envisioned the sharp-eyed people here!

I don't know if it's intentional but you posted that EXACT paragraph IN THIS THREAD on 12-8. BTW your cut and paste skills are marvelous these days.

But I'm glad we're still keeping you awake out there!

As John Keats said, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."