That was No Heart Attack

In the scene when Frankie Five Angels spots Fredo ... "Fredo you son of a bitch..." there is a point where Frankie makes a reference to Clemenza, tugs on the black armband and Fredo makes a reference to Clemenza having died from a heart attack. At that point Willie Cici walks out and says "That was no heart attack."

Obviously Cicci was implying that Clemenza was intentionally killed. But by whom? And for what reason? Any thoughts?

Leaving out any reference to the Winegardner novels, I would say someone connected to Roth. Possibly the Rosattos.

Bear in mind I have no evidence to support that, but no evidence exists to the contrary either that I am aware of.

Willie would like blame the Rosatos for anything, including the Lindbergh kidnapping.

A dark-horse candidate for killing Pete would be Bussetta, who we see elsewhere trying to smother Roth with a pillow. That could look like a heart attack in Pete's sleep. This would require Michael to have motive to get Pete out of the way, of course.

I always thought Cicci meant that Clemenza had a heart attack because of all the bullshit going on in new york. The Rosato business was taking its toll on the old timer. If there was an ounce of belief that someone killed Clemenza in Michael's mind, I don't think Michael would turn a blind eye. Cicci is a street gangster and wants the Rosato's gone. In his eyes, they're back in new York being gangsters while Michael is Nevada making deals with Hymen Roth. That's why Cicci is taking orders instead of giving them. He may be good at the card game "war", but Michael is a master at Chess.

I agree with blueracing347, I always figured he meant that the Rosattos basically gave Clemenza a heart attack due to their shenanigans going on and the fact they didn't listen to him.

I agree. Clem was a walking heart attack anyway.

Cicci meant the stress and fighting from the rosatos and frankie basically killed him

Cicci's comment was actually based on his knowledge. In a deleted scene, he and Clemenza drink a toast to Cicci's graduation from Physician's Assistant training.

A little off topic, but Joe Spinell (Cicci) was just awesome. I loved him as the Phily wiseguy in Rocky. Very subtle, realistic portrayal. Good writing by Sly. It's too bad he died so young, he definitely would have had a part on the Sopranos.

Yeah, Francis Ford Coppola got his nose out of joint when Richard Castellano demanded too much to appear in Part II. So FFC killed off the character without any real details. The ultimate snub.

I remember a scene from another movie about the Bonanno family where a bunch of Mafiosi are at a restaurant eating spaghetti and a character played by Castellano dies. Some there think it was poison although it was a heart attack.

Do any Board members recall that movie? Could Cicci be referencing that death?

Oli, the movie you're referring to is "Honor Thy Father," based on the book by Gay Talese, about Bill Bonannno's devotion to his father during the "Banana War" of the mid-Sixties. In that scene, Joe Bonanno has just surfaced in Manhattan after more than a year on the lam. He and his high-ranking loyalists are enjoying an Italian dinner in a restaurant when one of them (not Castellano) croaks of a heart attack. It was a great scene: Castellano fixes the waiter with a baleful, accusing stare, and the terrified waiter grabs handsful of the pasta from the dead guy's plate, shovels it in his mouth, and says, "It's good! It's good!"

TB, that's it. Perhaps FFC gave Cicci dialogue based on that scene. I'm assuming that that scene represented actual events since, although sensationalized to some extent, it factually represented the Banana's War events.

Couple of similar threads, surfaced during my search....

Why couldn't it have been just a heart attack?

The death of Peter Clemenza...

Wasn't no heart-attack

“that Fat Clemenza” was a “walking heart attack” indeed Clemenza was puffing and panting climbing the stairs to kill Stracci

• Why would Clemenza promise the Rosato brothers, Corleone rivals, three territories in the Bronx after he died?
• If true, was Clemenza trying to pacify? the Rosatos because “The Rosato business was taking its toll on the old timer”
• If true, wouldn't Clemenza need Michael's permission to carve up the Corleone territories and 'gift' them to the Rosatos?
• If true, did the Rosatos hasten Clemenza's death by "their shenanigans" to get the promised territories sooner?
• Did Roth make it up! stirring up trouble within Michael's New York operations and by backing the Rosatos?
• Did Roth figure? Michael wouldn't want the Rosatos touched because Michael does not want his important business with Roth disturbed

Pentangeli: [Anthony's party] to Michael, disputing Clemenza's promise

“I weltched?”
“Clemenza promised them nothing. He hated those son of a bitches more than I do”

Michael “turned a blind eye” when Pentangeli 'disappeared' even though Pentangeli went to meet up, to "settle these troubles with the Rosato brothers" at Michael's request

Michael hanged Pentangeli out to dry nor took care of the 'dead' capo's family

Some time ago, I started a thread about how Michael's greed for Roth's Havana empire clouded his judgment and blinded him to Roth's treachery. A big part of it had to do with your questions above.

Start with an even more basic one: Why didn't Michael question why Roth, who lived in Miami and had business interests in Nevada and Cuba, would interest himself in an obscure beef between the Rosatos and Pentangeli over three territories in the Bronx? Roth's interest was obvious: He was planning all along to have Michael killed--first at the Tahoe party and then, when it failed, in Havana. Allying himself with the Rosatos in NYC, and getting Michael to take their side against his own man Pentangeli, would pave the way for the Rosatos to take over NYC completely. Then the Corleone successors would no longer have the muscle-in-reserve in NYC that they could have relied on in case of a war or an attempt by others to take over their Nevada interests. Why didn't Michael see that?

My guess is that he might have questioned it at one point. And Roth, knowing how hot Michael was for the Havana deal, would have fixed him with his steely eye and said, "Michael, just go along with me--it'll be good for business."

Why imply that Clemenza was intentionally killed then leave us hanging with no explanation

Michael & Roth's casinos

If Michael had died?

Sure thing Turnbull “Michael's greed for Roth's Havana empire clouded his judgement and blinded him to Roth's treachery” leading to under / over estimating and later Roth's greed for Michael's $2 million resulted same for Roth

According to Roth's plan, Michael would be dead the night of Tahoe party

So why would the ever astute, meticulous Roth as clever as he is, take such an uncharacteristic risk, showing his hand interesting himself in an obscure beef - between Miami, New York, Nevada and Havana - seems to me far too high a risk for Roth to take especially so early on when by all accounts Michael would be dead the night of Tahoe party

It is never “good for business” taking sides against our own people though greedy Michael did just that totally disregarding his own advice to Fredo “don't ever take sides with anyone against the Family Ever”

However Michael could have twigged onto Roth, as to what Roth was up to and Roth's plans could have come crashing down, Roth even ending up dead
Just seems an unnecessary risk especially for someone like Roth who was always flying under the radar

Makes no sense because I believe if Michael had died in the Tahoe shooting, neither Tom, Neri nor Rocco would have had any idea and totally in the dark, it was Roth who was behind the shooting Nobody, figures out it was Roth all along

Whist I appreciate Roth's clever back up plans to deprive the Corleone successors of their “muscle-in-reserve” in New York surely Neri and Rocco could have mustered up a regime to fight “a war or an attempt by others to take over their Nevada interests”

Roth “Allying himself with the Rosatos in NYC, and getting Michael to take their side against his own man Pentangeli” looks good on paper but could have very easily backfired indeed

When Fredo took sides against the Family the second time he ended up dead

The Rosatos were essential to Roth's Plan A--to have Michael assassinated at Tahoe. By advocating for the Rosatos against Pentangeli, Roth in effect set up Frankie to show up at Anthony's party, contentious and angry. Therefore, Pentangeli would make the perfect patsy for Michael's assassination. If Michael had been killed, Pentangeli either would have been on the run, or would have had to fight the Rosatos for control of the Olive Oil business. Either scenario would have weakened the Corleone successors.

Even though the attempt failed, it still looked like Pentangeli had set up the Tahoe shooting--that is, until Michael finally came to his senses and figured out that Roth was behind it. That's when he started playing Roth beautifully, telling him (in Miami), that their Havana deal was still on, and that "Frank Pentangeli is a dead man--you don't object?" Roth fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Now Roth's greed for the $2 million blinded him to the obvious: Why would Michael ask Roth's permission to kill his own subordinate, Pentangeli?

Michael replied That I cannot do

Roth said Do me this favor I won't forget it I know how to return a favor

Roth always made money for his partners, lived like our average neighbour, harmless old man, a retired investor living on a pension, in an unassuming house, eating tuna sandwiches and flying under the radar

Again, why would Roth take such an uncharacteristic risk, showing his hand interesting himself in an obscure beef against Michael's man, Pentangeli, when by all accounts Michael would be dead the night of Tahoe party

All Roth would have had to do is to sit back and let them fight each other then pick up the Corleone business after all the bloodshed

It seems to me, Roth took a very risky unnecessary gamble that Roth's “Havana deal” carrot would make Michael to go against his own people

I can think of two other not dissimilar instances

• Vito sending Luca to find out what the Tattaglia's had under their finger nails thus to Luca's death

Vito was slipping

• Greene slapping Fredo around in public

Corleones were acting weak

Michael taking the Rosatos side against his own man Pentangeli is inexcusable, on so many fronts and nice reward! indeed for loyal Pentangeli

• Pentangeli was loyal to Vito, Michael's father [and Michel himself] for years
• Rosatos were taking hostages [not sure what this means?]
• Rosatos spit right in Pentangeli's [Michael's man] face
• Roth from Miami was openly backing the Rosatos, the Corleone rivals in New York against the Corleone people, in effect against Michael
• Roth was not even subtle about his backing of the Rosatos

Clemenza supposedly promising the Rosato brothers, Corleone rivals, three territories in the Bronx after he died and Pentangeli not honouring Clemenza's 'promise'
Michael wants Pentangeli to be fair with the Rosatos because they feel cheated

Then the true reason surfaces that Michael doesn't want the Rosatos touched because the Rosatos are backed by Roth with whom Michael has business that's important and doesn't want it disturbed

Michael threw Pentangeli under the bus and then played Pentangeli like a violin, hounding him to his suicide via Tom

Whilst Pentangeli should have had more faith in his Don, with Dons like Michael who needs....

Certainly Roth took a risk with that ploy. The risk, as I posted earlier, was that Michael would question the obvious: Why is Roth interesting himself in this obscure beef between Pentangeli and the Rosatos? But, he was counting on Michael's greed for the Havana deal to blind his eyes to the obvious. And, Roth was right, wasn't he? Michael ignored the obvious until the Tahoe machine-gunning nearly cost him and his wife their lives.

My take, for what it is worth!

Sure thing Turnbull Roth's risky gamble [wonder whether Michael even questioned the obvious!] paid off but only temporarily though

Michael was also blind to as to why Roth, part owner with the old Lakeville Road group from Cleveland, would “go along with” Michael moving Klingman out and taking over their hotel

It seems to me Roth cultivates his business and his business partners, establishing relationships, even celebrating his birthday with them

It would have taken time [since the 20's] and effort cultivating the Havana empire befriending, bribing Batista and the like, bringing in investors, being fair not cheating them and always making money for his partners

Roth had Michael completely relaxed and confident, in their father / son alliance! their friendship even more so, after Ola's assurance that Roth will go along with Michael moving Klingman out which Michael greatly appreciated

Whilst Coppola can't kill Michael off [yet!] I do believe if Roth had waited until Havana to murder Michael ie: no Tahoe shooting, Roth would have succeeded, rivalling the Baptism murders!

Whilst Michael's $2 million would have been a bonus if Michael had died, in the Tahoe shooting, the $2 million is a non-factor

My debatable! theories, on further review....

Roth was slipping! I think too many variables in Tahoe shooting
I believe, the Tahoe shooting was complicated and risky even if it had been successful whereas Havana, Roth's kinda town, sure winner!

If Michael had died in the Tahoe shooting -

• It doesn't seem to me, Pentangeli's neck is automatically on the chopping block
• Roth couldn't have known for certain how Michael and Pentangeli's meeting would progress
• In fact, Pentangeli could have persuaded Michael to back Michael's own man, in an obscure beef, a Street thing
• There is always the chance that Tom, Neri, Rocco work out Pentangeli did not have the brains and could not have engineered the shooting
• Tom and others may not factor Roth into the equation straight away but they all could work together and I believe Tom can restore order and save the Corleone business especially without Michael on his back!
• Pentangeli joins in providing whatever muscle and help as required
• Roth interesting himself in an obscure beef against Michael's man and in effect against Michael could have cast suspicions on Roth

If Roth had waited until Havana to murder Michael

• Roth would have gotten Michael's $2 million
• Roth would have used Michael's own money or part thereof to pay for Michael's own murder
• Such a terribly unfortunate death, caught up in the midst of the rebel uprising in spite of being escorted in a military car
• Nobody suspects any foul play because Roth loved Michael like his son and Michael was Roth's heir apparent
• Roth carries on living like a retired investor on a pension with no Michael burrowing into Roth's empire

I covered all those points in a long-ago thread. Sure, everything Roth did in trying to kill Michael was risky. But, the reason Tahoe was Roth's Plan A was that it pointed the finger at Pentangeli, and set up the Rosatos to take over NYC as Roth either ran or fought it out with them. Roth was so hot to take advantage of that golden opportunity to get rid of Michael that he would have foregone the $2 million. In fact, Roth probably told Michael, before Tahoe, that $2 million would be the price he'd have to pay to be anointed Roth's heir in Cuba. So, if Michael had been killed at Tahoe, suspicious minds (like Neri and Rocco, who were in on on the deal) would have seen that Roth didn't get his $2 million--another reason not to suspect Roth.

And, his Plan B, which he probably had in mind in case Plan A failed, was equally brilliant: the finger of suspicion still pointed at Pentangeli, and Roth would still get the $2 million, though he'd have to pay part or all of it to have Batista's thugs kill Michael.

But, Roth made four critical blunders:
--Pentangeli didn't run. Roth didn't see that as a sign that Pentangeli was confident in his innocence--and had the coglione to believe Michael would see it that way.
--Michael, instead of having him killed (as he told Roth in Miami), dispatched him to "settle these problems with the Rosato brothers." Roth should have seen that as proof that Michael didn't suspect Pentangeli in the Tahoe shooting--meaning that he might suspect Roth.
--He didn't think Michael had the brains to figure out that Pentangeli wasn't smart or ambitious enough to have planned and executed the Tahoe shooting simply to get Michael off his back in NYC.
--Most important: Roth was too greedy for the $2 million. He could have had Michael whacked in Havana at any time and made it look like an unfortunate casualty of the rebels. But, no, he held out way too long.

The genius of the scene in Roth's room in Havana after the doctor leaves: It's almost obvious that both Michael and Roth are on to each other--and each knows it. But, they're still playing the game: Roth is holding out for the $2 million and Michael is holding out to find out who was the traitor in his family.

My take is, killing Michael in Havana is not as risky as Tahoe bedroom shooting In fact, Havana was a sure winner!
Havana plan was “brilliant” I believe foolproof [unlike Tahoe] and Roth's “golden opportunity to get rid of Michael” without anyone even suspecting Roth – Michael's terribly unfortunate death

As regards Roth's “critical blunders” -

• Roth was slipping! Roth overthought! a simple murder
• Roth banking on Pentangeli making the perfect patsy for the Tahoe shooting – too many variables
• I now don't quite understand why Roth needed to “set up the Rosatos to take over NYC” because once Michael is murdered in Havana there was no need “Nobody wants another war”

My revised view! I now believe Roth was not a greedy man, for Michael's business nor the $2 million
Michael had to make an investment [$2 million] in Havana not dissimilar to the other investors

I don't think “he [Roth] held out way too long” to whack Michael in Havana
I believe, Michael's any unexplained violent death other than the meticulously planned, carefully considered and arranged, after the New Year's Eve Presidential party, caught up in the midst of the rebel uprising in spite of being escorted in a military car, can be fraught with problems, not as 'believable' and would certainly raise suspicions why Michael was the only one killed

if there was no Tahoe murder attempt -

• There would have been no Michael and Roth “are on to each other”
• Michael would have arrived in Havana with the $2 million, eager to be anointed as Roth's heir apparent and handed the money over to Roth
• Michael would have ended up never seeing the New Year

Roth played Michael beautifully, had Michael "dancing on the strings" held by Roth, had Michael believing Roth loved Michael like his son, Michael was Roth's heir apparent and Roth was 'gifting' his business to Michael - until the Tahoe shooting
All of the above and of course greed blinded Michael

Revenge blinded Roth

Pete, your reference to Michael's motivation if he was behind Clemenza's murder is important and unanswerable. We don't have a reliable timeline. Nevertheless, when Clemenza died (murdered or not) , it looks like Frankie took over. Frankie seems like a real, old-time Mafioso who followed the rules (like Dellacroce) and would not murder Clemenza to take over the family. Maybe it was the Rosatos afterall. Since they seem to be impersonations of the Gallos, would the Gallos have murdered Profaci if they had the opportunity?

I reckon we need a separate thread! Turnbull might come up with a suitable subject heading and move the relevant posts

Roth had him where he wanted him until the Tahoe shooting but blew it He got carried away trying to create mayhem, exacting revenge in every Corleone business He ended up showing his hand and spreading himself too thin

How Neri and Rocco, were in on on the deal

Vito and Michael no back up plans Only perfect Baptism murder plan