Michael killing the Turk

When Michael said, "I gotta go to the bathroom."
then Solozzo frisked him, but when he returned, Solozzo did not. But it was more reasonable that he frisk Mike when he comes back. What is this ? Is not it a weakness of the story ?

he didnt expect them to find out about the location non the less a gun planted in there

Yeah frisking him when he comes back would be a better plan. Also Michael took a huge risk, because Clemenza told him to come out blasting, not to sit down. Imagine if Sollazzo had frisked him on the way back too.

The novel provides another key detail: Sollozzo had a man in the restaurant at another table. When Michael asked to go to the john, Sollozzo looked to the man, who gave him a sign that it was ok because he had checked the bathroom. That's probably why Sollozzo didn't search Michael when he came out.

No effect...cause when Mike came out of the bathroom he could shoot immediately. There is about 10 meters between the sitting place and the bathroom door. Enough to shoot from a distance.In other words: it could be too late to frisk him.

And Turnbull I know the man already checked the bathroom, but it was so small you could easily find it behind the flusher.

Except that he didn't.

There is a good point made that Michael took a risk by sitting down before shooting, despite Clemenza's instructions.

However McClusky's declaration of 'I frisked him, he's clean!'...along with the fact that the bathroom was considered clean...apparently led Sollozzo to a false sense of safety.

And gosh, what a different story (if any) we would be discussing if Michael's gun was somehow discovered!!



AppleOnYa

Did you notice however, that it did take Michael a bit to find it? Remember he had to feel around a little? I always thought that was a nice touch to that scene. It seemed for a brief moment we saw a little panic/fear in Michael's face as he was feeling around for the gun, as though he was thinking it wasn't there. It wasn't like he just reached and retrieved it right away.


TIS

i could only imagine being in michaels position, someone who had a whole other destiny chosen, just walking out of the bathroom blasting. knowing that this single incident would change his life forever and that he would need to dissapear.....i think i would need to sit down too and think it over.
rob

Somehow I don't think Michael's reason for sitting down was to 'think it over'. Once he walked into that restaurant he knew what he had to do, and that he was going to do it. The 'thinking it over' part was long past.

I would agree that Micheal just didn't have it in him to 'come out blasting'. One would guess he was a nervous wreck and simply had to sit down and gear himself up. YOu can see it all in his face.

Apple

sorry that was a little confusing...i wasnt saying that that was michaels reasoning for sitting down. i was just saying "i would to need to sit down too"............and think it over personally, if it were me



rob

This scene is good example of the "repeated viewing analysis" syndrome. We really have to throw out the book scenario of the third man. It would have added clutter to the scene. But think of viewing the scene for the first time. This scene has an enormous amount of dramatic build-up and consequence.

Michael is making his leap into family business. A very personal struggle and decision that will be consumated by his act of violence. As the viewer we feel Michael's anxiety. Play that against Sollozzo's desparation and suspicion. Will Michael be able to do it? Will Sollozzo foil the attempt? Sollozzo frisks him going into the bathroom (thank God we sigh, I hope he doesn't do it on the way out). Then Michael comes out of the bathroom, AND HE DOESN'T COME OUT BLASTIN'!!. Omigod what if Sollozzo frisks him again!!!? Coppala builds up the suspense through, sound, sight and dialog AND the actors play beautifully against each other.

Without a doubt one of the most dramatic and perfectly executed scenes in movie history.

After Mike kills the two of them and runs out of the restaurant, where was the driver Lou? The car was still parked out front. He should've been standing out there next to the car. That might have made Mike's exit a little more interesting. Maybe Coppola could've added a quick shot of some Corleone buttons taking care of the driver.

As Stallionette said, even Michael had a hard time finding the gun so it was not that easy to find. Secondly let's remember something here : Mike was checked when he first gets into the car, then again when he gets up to go to the bathroom, right? Well they ALL knew that Michael was a civilian and not an acting participant in the family business. This probably made them all a bit more relaxed, especially after checking Mike out twice, and Sollozo's man who checked the bathroom probably knew this too, so he OBVIOUSLY did not do a thorough job. Sollozo's guy probably checked out the bathroom before they arrived to make sure that no one was hiding in there that would come out shooting when Sollozo entered the restaurant. That was more his mission then finding anything planted in there.

Don Cardi

I don't recall if the novel explains this, but I have to figure that a Corleone Soldier "QUIETLY" took the driver "OUT" after they were dropped off. Let's face it, the whole Corleone plan was a well planned one, so I don't think that a detail like the driver would be "overlooked" by Clemenza and Tessio.


Don Cardi

In the Novel Sollozzo had a henchman in the restaurant but in the movie he doesn't.

Everybody wonders where Lou was when Mike came out. Well I guess he was taken out by Tessio or his regime. After all Tessio was waiting for him

yeah i know, that was really a nice touch, and first time i watched the movie i thought it really wasn't there or that he wouldn't find it.

Wasn't it better that Micheal go to the bathroom and when micheal was in the bathroom a few corleone-soldiers come in and shot Sollozzo and McCluskey to death (like Luciano did with Masseria).

No.

Because how would the 'soldiers' know exactly when Michael went into the bathroom? Remember, this is 1946.

And suppose everyone agreed on an exact time when he would get up to go to the bathroom? Do you think Sollozzo would be just a tiny bit suspicious that Michael checks his watch and then leaves the table?

And suppose some 'soldier' is watching from across the street to see just when Michael gets up. You think Sollozzo doesn't have the whole block swept and a lookout for something like that already covered?

The only way to get this done was to have them completely trusting of Michael and the Corleone Family.

Apple

1946...yes but the killing on Joe Masseria was in 1931, so that was earlier. And of course there were people of Sollozza outside. But they also saw Micheal killing the 2 and Micheal hadn't got problem with the Sollozzo men also..
Tell me if I'm wrong.

what he said

A potentially fatal flaw and loose end in the Corelone plan was that unarmed Michael was a sitting duck, vulnerable to Sollazzo's presumably armed driver outside.

Sollazzo's driver mysteriously and conveniently disappears when Michael exits the restaurant. This is true both in the book and the film. Puzo and FFC gloss over this. Maybe the guy just went around the corner for a smoke?

There are no other Sollazzo people outside (book and film). In the book, there is a Sollazzo goon inside the restaurant, but not outside. If we assume that Sollazzo people were outside, we must also assume that Corleone soldiers took them out for Michael's safety.

However, during the Coleone planning sessions, neither Sonny nor Tom nor anyone else mentions whacking potential Sollazzo people outside the restaurant, in defense of unarmed Michael.

Sonny tells Tessio to pick up Michael after the job. That's it.

Michael was just lucky.

Here is Michael thinking... "Gee.. I just whacked Sollazzo and McCluskey. Now, I've got to drop the gun. But what about LOU THE DRIVER outside? He must HAVE A GUN! I better hold on to my gun just in case.. But no. I can't get caught with the gun. Maybe Tessio will take care of the Driver. But Tessio is such an old fart? Sonny never ordered Tessio to do this!!!.. What do I do.. shit in my pants... MARIO PUZO, please write in the story that the driver disappears... .... ... ... Thank you Mario!! Now I can drop the gun and leave the restaurant.. I'm the most important character in the trilogy, you can't kill me this early."

Well I suppose you're right...I'm not the gangster history expert around here.

So I guess instead of playing the game with you, the simple answer is, that it worked out the way it did because Puzo wrote it that way. All the alternate plans and the fact that Mike was taking a big risk and what COULD have happened can be run into the ground. If we had not read/seen it depicted just the way it was, then we would be talking about a different story.

Best,
Apple

PS - To get back to 'the game'...I do think part of the reason the plan worked was that Sollozzo DID trust Michael. They frisked Michael in the car, took that famous abrupt turn on the bridge...and he had McCluskey with him. A fact that even Tom had surmized earlier made him virtually invulnerable. And Michael up to that point was considered 'a civilian'. Plus, how was Sollozzo to know that the Corleones had the informer in the police force to pass on that McClusky would be on call at Louis' in the Bronx.

Considering those circumstances I think Sollozzo took all the precautions he thought he would need to take. I believe he & McClusky thought they were perfectly safe.

He seemed to disregard a lot of what Clemenza said. He didn't drop the gun to his side right away, he ran out, instead of walking (i think). He only shot the Turk once, after Clemenza said shoot each twice in the head. But it sure as hell worked.

In the novel, Puzo made a point of Michael experiencing a "strange delicious chill" during the dinner because "Sollozzo was underestimating him as a punk kid."
Underestimations lead to errors in judgment, and much of the action in the entire Trilogy pivots on underestimations. The Don underestimated Sollozzo...Sollozzo underestimated Michael...Sonny underestimated Carlo...Barzini and Tessio underestimated Michael...Michael underestimated Roth...Roth underestimated Michael...and so on.

This what I came here tonight to ask about. As Michael comes out of Louis's restaurant, there is the car they came to the restaurant in, with the white sidewalls and all. Surely Lou would have heard the shots fired from the "noisemaker" that Clemenza chose for Michael to use. I don't relish finding these plot holes, but when I notice one, I want to know what others think. And I have read the other comments here, and so, the answer is... we really don't know, and are free to fill in what seems plausible. But if there's no Lou sitting in the car, then I'd have to assume he'd been whacked on the street, but somehow without drawing attention to it.

Bty, while lining up the shot outside to watch in slo-motion as Michael comes walking out past the parked car where Lou should have been... in the scene --just-- before that, where Captain McCluskey is lying on the floor, at 1:29:56, I spotted that he blinks his eye one time. I saw this in regular motion. I couldn't see the blink as well in slo-mo.

It would've been nice if Lou's death (a picture with his head against the steering wheel) was on one of the first newspaper articles they showed after the murders. Just my .02

I was wondering what happened to the hostage the Corleone's were holding? Do think they killed him out of spite??

The hostage(s) were only arranged to guarantee Michael's safety, not Sollozzo's. The Corleones would have released any hostages they were holding.

Note, also, that Michael's first shot hits Mac in the throat, but while he's clutching his throat, you see the bullet hole from the second shot already on his forehead-- before Michael pulled the trigger the second time.

That second shot was from a different gunman...on the grassy knoll.

Yes. We heard the gunshot on a Dictabelt carried by a motorcycle cop outside Louis Restaurant.

I believe that the film was altered by MGM agents.

I'm still looking for Michael's hat on the way out. The gun's untraceable, but is the hat?

They didn't have DNA testing in that era. They might have been able to lift a fingerprint if he had a "Dewey for President" button pinned to the sweatband.

Which reminds me of this dialogue from Sonny:

"Now listen...I want somebody good --- and I mean very good, to plant that gun.

I don't want my brother to come out of that toilet with just his dictabelt in his hands. Allright."

With all of the searching and reaching for the gun that Michael did, I would think that some or part of Michael's finger prints got on the gun, on the part of the gun that wasn't taped. With a Captain being executed, you'd think the Dept. would go over the gun very thoroughly. But, I guess that there wasn't enough there to work with. Imagine that poor waiter being interrogated as to what the shooter looked like.

That small pistol doesn't have enough flat surface areas to get a full,unsmeared, identifiable clean print. If you touch something and touch it again fingerprints overlap and they're worthless. They didn't have very sophisticated means of fingerprinting and zero DNA testing then either. Not like today where they'd use the super glue vapor in a chamber to stick to the oils left behind with the print or computers that can match prints. And even then it's very hard to get clean prints and they aren't enough to convict someone of a crime in court if that's the only evidence. I'm sure the waiter wouldn't have identified Micheal or he would have "disappeared". Tom wouldn't have allowed Micheal to be fingerprinted or they would have gotten the prints throw out, etc.

Micheal's fingerprints are already on record as a serviceman, no??

Before the hit, Clemenza tells Michael not to worry about prints because he put a "special tape" on the trigger and butt. I have no idea whether that's an actual thing.

But Michael probably did touch other parts of the gun when he pulled it out from behind the toilet tank.

Maybe, but what would they be able to pull prints off of? If you were a cop and you arrived on that crime scene, what would point you in his direction? Why would he be a suspect or would they approach that waiter with a photo of Michael asking if this was the shooter? We of course know all the details, I'm sure the cops would be well aware it's mob related, but after the Corleone's had released/printed info about McClusky being a dirty cop they probably preferred the story faded away rather than continue with some big investigation too don't forget.

As Woltz points out, Michael most certainly would have touched other parts of the gun. Of course, prints examination by law enforcement of a homicide weapon would have been routine. However, those prints would probably have been smudged by Michael's placement of the gun in his pants and his pulling the gun out.

I thought it was curious though that when Michael pulled the gun from the back of the tank there was no tape on it. Most certainly, there would have to be. While Michael's pull on the gun would have released it from the tank, it would not have released it from the tape that was holding the gun in place.