Michael was slippin'

Hyman Roth lived in Miami and had business interests in Cuba and Nevada. He had no obvious, above-board reason to interest himself in an obscure quarrel between Frank Pentangeli and the Rosato brothers over three territories in the Bronx, NY. Yet he managed to convince Michael to takes sides with him against Pentangeli—Michael’s loyal caporegime in NY. We learned pretty quickly that it was part of Roth’s plot to whack Michael and make Pentangeli the fall guy—setting up the Rosatos to take over the Corleones’ NY operation as Roth’s allies.

Why didn’t Michael, well before the Tahoe attack, see that Roth had no reason to involve himself in the Bronx dispute? Why didn’t he smell a rat?

A good question. But it's my understanding that Michael never actually took sides against Pentangeli. It was all part of an elaborate ruse to con Roth into believing that Michael was on his side, so that he could flush out the identity of the traitor in the Corleone family. Am I missing something?

As to the question of why Michael never smelled a rat, is it possible that he was simply going along with Roth on the Cuban deal, at least partially to get a better view of what Roth's real intentions were in the Bronx?

~ Q

Michael was deceived by Roth until the bullets started flying at Tahoe. Just before that, in the boathouse, he ordered Pentangeli to settle up with the Rosatos because "I have important business with Hyman Roth and I don't want it disturbed."

I don't agree TB. I don't think that Michael was ever fooled. Roth was a competitor to be manipulated or killed. Michael's instruction to Frankie was simply to disguise his ultimate takeover of gambling plan.

Q and Oli: help me understand your thinking. Are you saying that Michael suspected and distrusted Roth's intentions before the Tahoe shooting? What I saw were warm greetings to Johnny Ola; a rare show of emotion when Ola told Michael that he could move Klingman out of the Tropigala hotel (Michael grasps Ola's knee and says, "You tell him that's greatly appreciated!"); and when Pentangeli, after being told to give up the territories to the Rosatos, says, "You give your first loyalty to a Jew before your own kind?" Michael replies, "Oh, come on, Frankie, you know my father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth..." And, Michael looked genuinely stunned when he met with Tom right after the shooting. He sure didn't expect it.

TB, they're all sharks who employ any strategy that will get them what they want. Michael's interaction with Ola was simply a ploy to disguise his real intentions; there was no other productive reason for Michael to have said or done anything else to Ola. His statement to Frankie was intended to keep Frankie from doing anything rash that would antagonize Roth and upset Michael's plan.

So, yes, he didn't trust Roth before the shooting anymore than he trusted anybody else. His statement to Tom about our people being businessmen and their loyalty being based on that is revealing. If that was true of his own family's soldiers, was it any less true of a Jewish gangster.

What Oli has stated is undoubtedly correct. The unspoken caveat to all of this is that everyone is ultimately in it for himself.

IMO, this is the proper context in which to understand Michael's dealings with Roth, at least prior to the assassination attempt: Michael did business with Hyman Roth. Michael respected Hyman Roth. But Michael never trusted Hyman Roth.

Whether Michael's initial intention had been to do a straight deal with Roth (which might explain his friendliness with Johnny Ola, etc.) or to execute a behind-the-scenes takeover of Roth's empire, is not clear to me. But either way, he still needed Frankie to play along - either to prevent Roth from scuttling the deal, or to keep Roth placated long enough for Michael to take his revenge, and possibly to take over Roth's empire.

In any event, I'd be reluctant to characterize this as "taking sides" against Pentangeli in favor of Roth. Michael was nothing if not opportunistic and pragmatic. If he saw a chance to make a huge score with/against Roth, I doubt he'd allow his relationship with Frankie to hold him back. But he was wise enough to realize that he stood more to lose than to gain by throwing Frankie under the bus, so to speak. So then I can only surmise that whatever he asked of Frankie was intended to be more of a strategic temporary retreat, than a permanent withdrawal.

~ Q

Michael wanted Roth to think that he believe Pentangeli was behind the Tahoe shooting, so to do that he acted as if he didn't care about the Rosato's eating into his territory. After all Pentangeli was "small potatoes."

On another level, this is one of those instances where Michael's hubris shows. As much as he is trying to be legitimate, he is offended when Pentangeli comes to his house, and more or less tells him that he no longer understands how things work on the street. After all Michael now drinks "chamoagne cocktails." Michael wanted to show Pentangeli and all those around him that he still had his finger on the pulse everywhere. We see this again in III when Michael is trying to interfere with the rise of Joey Zasa.

Whilst Frankie Pentangeli should have had more faith in his Don, Hang out to dry - Frankie Pentangeli was....

Pentangeli against his own wishes, went to meet up with the Rosato Brothers at Michael's behest
It is a given that the Capo's widow and family are taken care of Yet noone from the Corleones bothered with the Pentangeli family whether Pentangeli died / disappeared?
Perhaps they did but Pentangeli was unaware, living in Army barracks with the FBI guys!

I found Michael and Ola's hand shake telling
Power play? It seemed it was Ola leaning forward to shake Michael's hand [Michael made no move towards Ola] after Michael told Ola "You tell him that's greatly appreciated!"

What I find somewhat confusing! Among others,

1. Why did Clemenza promise the Rosato brothers the three territories What was the connection
2. Why did Michael need to placate Roth because they were both negotiating a big deal together, important business Michael did not want disturbed
3. Why did Roth try to kill Michael as at that stage 'great man' Roth and 'wise and considerate young man' Michael were 'partners'
4. Tom as Michael's consigliere did not keep his ear to the ground [unaware Pentangeli not dead, Israel knocking Roth back etc.] Then again Tom only handled specific areas of the family business
5. The Corleone people with the New York detectives would have passed on such vital information “Frankie was half dead, scared stiff and calling out loud that Michael'd turned on him” straight away but to whom? as Michael and Tom had no inkling at all, stunned that Pentangeli was alive until the senate hearing
6. How did the detectives already had Pentangeli on possession, bookmaking, murder and a lot more even with the Corleone protection

Lana, as to your confusion:
The dispute between Pentangeli and the Rosato brothers is based on a real life dispute between the Gallo brothers and Joe Profaci, a NYC Don, in the early Sixties. Profaci promised the Gallos several territories in Brooklyn if they whacked a freelancer who was opening up gambling games in Profaci's territory and refused to pay tribute. The Gallos whacked the guy, but Profaci welshed, setting off a war between them. It came to a climax when eldest Gallo brother Larry was invited to a sit-down by the Profacis in a supposedly closed bar in Brooklyn. He was garotted to within an inch of his life, but a policeman came in, saving his life at the last moment.

Michael had been horning in on Roth's Nevada gaming interests ever since he returned from Sicily. He killed Roth's best friend, Moe Green, and by GFII, he owned or controlled three hotels and was planning to take over a fourth, and was negotiating for Roth's Havana gaming empire. In other words: there was no place in the gaming industry for Hyman Roth in Michael's plan. Roth played the wise, fatherly old man to buy time to find a way to have Michael killed. After the Tahoe plot failed, Roth went to Plan B: Lure Michael to Havana, get the $2 million from him, and have Batista's secret police assassinate Michael.

Absolutely: Tom should have known about Pentangeli's survival and his ratting out Michael. He says, "Our people with the New York detectives say he was half-dead, scared, talking out loud about how you betrayed him." But, he told that to Michael after Michael, ignorant of Pentangeli's survival, had perjured himself before the Senate subcommittee. If Tom had contacts with the NYC detectives, why wasn't he in regular touch with them? Why didn't they tip him about Pentageli right away? Tom was slippin'.

I think there are a lot of GF fans who feel that Mike would never "slip" and was too smart to get beat. HOWEVER Roth clearly got the better of Mike throughout the whole film. Lets be honest the only reason mike "won" was by pure luck.

I go along with you to a large extent, JCC. Michael was taken in by Roth's seeming passivity after he had Roth's best friend, Moe Green, killed; while he encroached on Roth's Nevada interests, and his determination to take over Roth's Havana empire. He seemed to think Roth was a harmless old man with a paternal interest in him.

And, I fault Michael for not being suspicious of Roth's advocacy of the Rosato brothers: Why didn't Michael question why Roth, who lived in Miami and had business in Nevada and Havana, would interest himself in an obscure dispute between Pentangeli and the Rosatos over three territories in the Bronx? And, yes, Michael's survival of the Tahoe shooting, brilliantly engineered by Roth, was sheer luck.

No doubt about it: Roth was Michael's most resourceful, most resilient, most dangerous enemy. But: Michael was smart enough to figure out that Roth, not Pentangeli, was behind the Tahoe shooting. He also figured out how, where and when Roth planned to have him assassinated. Michael had been blinded by greed for the Havana deal and wasn't able to see Roth's treachery--but he recovered his senses
and his smarts after the shooting. Roth was blinded by greed for the $2 million, and never figured out that Michael was on to him and would get to him first.

Many thanks Turnbull You are right! I'd forgotten about Roth's best friend, Moe Greene

Tom was slippin' or he belongs to Roth!

Why did Roth “interest himself in an obscure dispute between Pentangeli and the Rosatos over three territories in the Bronx?”
Wonder what 'service' Rosato brothers did, for the 'reward' of the three territories
Was Clemenza's promise binding on Pentangeli? Michael broke the peace made by Vito

“Roth played this one beautifully” wrong footed and lulled Michael – Michael's Tropigala casino take over [Ola's message if Michael moved Klingman out, our friend in Miami will go along] Roth's advocacy of the Rosato brothers, Tahoe shooting, Moe Greene the kid Roth loved and trusted [lost to Michael's bullet in the eye]
Roth's survival in Havana was sheer luck too because of his stroke!
However “always knew Michael was too smart to let any of them beat him” even with slippin' consigliere!

Smart move, brilliantly engineered by Michael, bringing over Frankie Pentangeli's brother, Vincenzo
“what the hell happened here?” voila! Senate hearing collapsed faster than house of cards

Looked it up! Interesting, among others
If it wasn’t for a passing police officer who stopped the attack, Larry Gallo would have been killed

Don Joe Profaci “As a devout Catholic [Say what?!] gave thousands of dollars to Catholic charities”
Corleone foundation Blood money Yeah, right! “It's not personal It's strictly business”

Wonder Luca Brasi was Joseph 'Crazy Joe' Gallo

IMO I think Roth figured that Mike knew he had tried to kill him. Roth had a backup plan ready just in case. Roth's weakness was probably his health that was obviously bad. His sickness probably made his judgment a little messy at the end. Its also important to remember that Mike had a whole crime family behind him and even though Roth had power and money he didn't have all the soldiers that Mike had in Nevada, NY, and Italy so Roth was probably at a disadvantage in that regard.

Yes that was a smart move to bring in Frankie's brother BUT he would have never known if it wasn't for Fredo. If Fredo never told him about Questadt Mike would have been sitting in a jail cel. So again Mike was very smart, cunning, and ruthless BUT I still think he gets too much credit especially when it comes to his feud with Roth. Without luck and Fredo telling him about Questadt Mike would have lost easily

How did Fredo know about Questadt? See here:
http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthr...true#Post472494

Credit where credit is due.....Fair's Fair“Roth's been dying of the same heart attack for twenty years”
Roth was fine, even answering journalists' questions when he landed at Miami airport

Roth “brilliantly engineered” the bedroom shooting
It seems to me, whatever power, money, resources Roth had, were plenty – living in Miami, getting hit men from New York for Michael's contract murder, in highly secured [armed guards, dogs etc.] Tahoe compound - admittedly with insider help, shows Roth was at no disadvantage

The 'savage' looks Michael and Roth gave each other across the table, when the gold phone was being passed around in Havana - all bets are off!
Michael already knew that Frankie Pentangeli was alive and arrangements would have already been in place to bring Frankie's brother, Vincenzo over, when Michael went to talk to Fredo

Fredo's “Questadt belongs to Roth” only reaffirmed how deeply Fredo was involved with Roth and Ola, against Michael

You think too much of Roth, kid He is not that clever!

I don't think too much of anybody....I say what I saw in the movie. Look I never said Mike was a idiot he is very smart and cunning. HOWEVER he just wasn't one step ahead of Roth as you think he was. I know you don't like it but Roth got the better of him the entire movie until the end...thats just a fact. Yes I understand Roth was talking to reporters BUT that doesn't mean he was completely healthy. yes I agree he probably made himself look weaker than he really was BUT he was still obviously old and sick.

Yes, Michael knew that Pentangeli was alive before the Fredo boathouse meeting. But, he didn't know that Questadt belonged to Roth until Fredo told him. Knowing that Pentangeli was alive would have raised alarm bells in Michael's mind about what Pentangeli could have testified to. But, knowing that Questadt belonged to Roth would have confirmed that the Senate subcommittee was going to spring a perjury trap on him. I think that's what confirmed Michael's decision to bring Vincenzo to America and to the hearing.

An interesting side question: If Fredo had voluntarily come to Michael, before he testified, with both pieces of information, would Michael have pleaded the Fifth Amendment instead of lying under oath by denying the subcommittee's charges?

I agree knowing about Questadt helped [not pivotal] confirm bringing Frankie's brother, Vincenzo over, was Ace!

We are discussing the same movie! We are both Godfather fans I respect your take, your prerogative....
That's the beauty of Godfather that we are still debating them – The different opinions, views make the debate riveting indeed and learning new things

Whoa! assumptions! Say what?! *I think? *You know I don't like it? How so?!

As regards Roth's health, Michael was taking medication? too

Credit where credit is due.....Fair's Fair
Among others, couple of my previous and recent impartial posts – Extracts:
Roth was certainly one step ahead of Michael until the Tahoe shooting but Ref: Turnbull “Michael recovered his senses and his smarts after the shooting”

I reckon since the shooting, Michael and Roth were neck and neck, thwarting each other's game plans

Anyhow, let's agree to disagree! and move on as I feel it is getting *personal I'd like to keep it strictly business! please Blood is a big expense

Its not getting personal at all(at least not from my end) but its kinda weird that you are quoting the lines every post lol. Sure we can agree to disagree but is still doesnt change the fact that Roth was one step ahead most of the movie. Yes Mike won at the end so I guess "fair is fair" as you like to say.

TB, I never understood why Michael didn't avail himself of his 5th amendment protection regardless of his knowledge about anything. There was no benefit associated with his testifying.

I agree,Olivant. Even if Michael would have killed Five Angels himself,he should still have taken the Fifth. The only thing I can figure is that in Mike's mind, he would attain some of the "respectability" that he so desperately wanted if he answered the Commitee's questions. Also, if he did co-operate and was not indicted,it would be a great PR victory ,and would keep the Government off his back for a while.

I always thought that one of the plot points that stretched things a little was Mike's ability to locate Vincenzo,get word to him in Sicily,and put him on a plane, all in the span of time that the Committee was in recess.

Makes sense Michael wanted to show that he has nothing to hide, nothing that would incriminate him

It worked! the gamble paid off and kept the Government off his back

Never crush Mike it affects your judgement

“I say what I saw in the movie” Which movie

“Roth got the better of Mike the entire movie until the end, downgraded to Roth was one step ahead most of the movie” as you like to say Flogging a dead horse, still doesn't make it fact

*you did get personal

“Sure we can agree to disagree” but Turnbull wrong Lana wrong Jcrusher only one factual

Roth and Mike, its kinda weird that you are quoting the lines every post lol

Credit where credit is due.....Fair's Fair Nice one not biased

Oli, as you know well, a witness before a Senate committee or subcommittee can't use the Fifth to refuse to take the stand--he must take the stand and be sworn in. His Fifth Amendment privilege extends only to refusing to answer specific questions. The accepted form of refusal is: "I decline to answer that question because my answer might tend to incriminate me."

Michael obsessed over appearing "legitimate." The Senator asked him if he planned the murder of the heads of the Five Families, and other leading questions. If Michael replied that he refused to answer on the grounds that his answer might tend to incriminate him, everyone would have known that the reason his answer might tend to incriminate him was that if he answered truthfully, he'd have to admit that, yes, he did order those murders. It would have been the beginning of the end of his "legitimate" cover.

What's more: The Nevada Legislature in 1958 took control of the gaming industry from the Tax Commission (where oversight was lax) and put it with a new Gaming Commission. One of their tools was the "Black Book," a list of people who could be barred from even entering a casino, much less owning or operating one, because of their criminal records, associations with criminals--or simply "unsavory reputation" even if the license applicant or holder never was convicted of a crime. Michael's taking the Fifth in answer to a question about his complicity in murder could have led the Gaming Commission to put him in the Black Book. He'd lose his licenses. Guess who'd pick them up?

A couple of things TB. By even being subpoenaed by the Committee, doesn't that significantly impugn Michael's legitimacy? Also, Michael would have no need to enter a casino nor to officially own or operate a casino, right? Based on the foregoing, why would taking the 5th be more injurious to Michael?

Yes, Oli, being hauled before the subcommittee did challenge his legitimacy--and he said so in his little speech after his testimony: "I have not taken refuge behind the 5th amendment as it was my right to do. I challenge this committee -- to produce any witness or evidence against. And if it do not -- I hope they will have the decency to clear my name with the same publicity with which they have now besmirched it."

Note how he cites not taking the Fifth as a claim of virtue.

As for casino ownership: Geary, in his confrontation with Michael at Anthony's party, said, "You own, or control, three hotels...now my sources tell me you're going to make a move on the Tropigala..." If Geary knew it, the Gaming Commission knew it. As long as Michael was "legitimate," the Commission would look the other way if his share of the hotels was owned by fronts or third parties. But if his "legitimacy" fell into question, they could yank the licenses, no matter whose names were registered as owners.

BTW: Harry Reid, former Senate Majority Leader, was an early Gaming Commission chairman.

Well TB, I figure that the Commission had every reason to suspect Michael's legitimacy from day one. Why did they need the pretense to do so that would have been occasioned by Michael's taking the fifth?

Oli, you've put your finger on an anomaly here: Though Geary knew that Michael "owned or controlled" three hotels and was moving on a fourth, he denied under oath owning any hotels:
QUESTADT
Is it true that you have a controlling interest in three of the major hotels in Las Vegas.
MICHAEL
No it is not true -- I own stock in some of the hotels there -- but very little.

Gangsters routinely take the Fifth at Congressional hearings. They're not trying to deny under oath that they're gangsters--their goal isn't legitimacy, it's to avoid prosecution. I'm suggesting that Michael's taking the Fifth would have called into question his entire legitimate front. That could have been enough to stimulate the Nevada Gaming Commission to start investigating Michael's ownership positions in the hotels and trying to link the owners of record to Michael, possibly subjecting him to criminal prosecution as well as loss of those licenses by the nominal owners. Even if there were no investigation, and no loss of licenses, Michael's reputation would have been seriously dented. Roth couldn't lose!

Probably so TB. However,I assume that the Commission was as subject to corruption as any such entity. If so, I guess Geary et al could sway the Commission.

slippin' list goes on
Vito, Paulie Gatto, Mark McCluskey, Virgil Sollozzo, Santino, Moe Greene, Emilio Barzini, Carlo Rizzi, Don Fabrizio Fanucci

Just rewatched 1 and 2 the past couple of days. Something that should have stood out to me before but there's so many other good characters and stories to distract from it, was just how selfish Michael was compared to Vito. This is why I like the original version of GF 2 much better than some of the tv versions that have the story in chronological order.

It's important to switch back and forth between Vito and Michael in their start up years to emphasize how different their personalities were. Vito genuinely tried to help people. I can't think of one thing Michael did for anyone that wasn't in the commission of an agenda or nefarious act. The first time he invites Fredo out for a drink, he's only doing so to feel him out on the Roth situation. Even this tender moment between the brothers isn't genuine. Mike was gauging him all along.

Fredo, despite his traitorous acts which were obviously unforgivable by mafia standards, had a legitimate point when he criticized Michael for never having paid attention to him. He spelled it out, this was in fact the reason he betrayed him. Vito would have never let his own blood feel this way, no matter how preoccupied he might have been with family business.

"A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a true man".

I don't remember if Michael is in the room when Vito says this, but it's advice that could have prevented him from going down a path that led to him destroying his blood family, by way of alienating his wife and killing Fredo.

My goodness Micheal Corleone is one cold hearted character. What a great story by Misters Puzo and Coppola.

All true. He even his beloved daughter Mary as a tool for his legitimization in III.

I'm going to try to watch III again. Just for the story. I'll try to ignore the bad acting. Although I think Neri turns in a fine performance. Old man was loyal to Michael to the end.

My two cents worth!

Vito and Michael, sentiments aside....

Times were changing
They were entirely different times, circumstances, people, nefarious or otherwise acts, Mafia family, blood family, wives etc.

Vito could have cut their losses and walked away from Mafia but he didn't because he wanted, needed the Corleone family reputation, standing, history etc. to be restored, leaving a murderous legacy for Michael

Vito planned all the baptism murders including making his daughter a widow for Michael to carry out after Vito's death

No doubt Vito helped people however with the stipulation “Some day and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me”
The only exception I can think of was the help to Signora Colombo

Michael could not grant favours like Vito “must go to Don Corleone for justice” as he was supposedly a 'legitimate' businessman

Vito did not have the added burden of trying to make decades old Mafia business legitimate
Michael and Kay were unrealistic that such a feat could be accomplished let alone in five years

Did Vito pay attention to Fredo, his own blood son?
The way, at the garden scene, Vito dismissed Fredo and some!

"A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a true man" Did Vito?
If Vito did, I cannot recall other than business meetings Even with Carmela apart from Carlo and Connie's wedding photo

At the time of the brothers having drinks Fredo had said he had never met Roth or Ola
I believe Michael showed Fredo genuine affection

I think that the ultimate story of GFIII is ignored by so many of its viewers; they focus on casting and performances.

Michael sowed the seeds of his own demise and realized too late the consequences of the life he led and the deeds he committed. His silent scream is the epitome of the agony we all can feel about a wasted life. GFIII is instructive if nothing else.

...and the miserable way he died, keeling over from a broken heart, attended only by a little dog.

When giving GF3 a rewatch recently, I'd realized for the first time that Uncle Junior holding the cat at the end of "Remember When" was a reference to the end of the Godfather saga.

Given FFC's concern for dramatic effects, it's no wonder that Michael ended up dying in Sicily. Otherwise, why did he? Why not die in New York? Maybe not as dramatic as dying in Sicily. Did Michael just plain abandon America? So much of III took place in Sicily and it was so much a part of II, but I still wonder why Sicily.

While Godfather part III can be convoluted and unbalanced, we all can feel about the ultimate story, lesson and agony of Michael's horror metamorphosis and his wasted life

He paid dearly, deeply, even more so in part III – parading Mary and his family, resulting in her death and his own lonely, miserable death

“Your sins are terrible and it is just that you suffer” beyond redemption...

In fairness, I believe it was Vito who sowed the seeds with the baptism murders, leaving a murderous legacy for Michael

No doubt Michael's choices, decisions, deeds were good, bad and ugly However so were the circumstances Once in, downward spiral

It was all about Michael punishment, misery, regrets, lonely death but still

He was put through the wringer crying over Don Tommasino coffin, forgiveness from Kay, teary confession to Cardinal Lamberto and more

Kay not a murmur even the abortion